The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat

Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.

A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. The current hypothesis on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), presented by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is no exception to this principle. Indeed, it is the job of scientists to expose the weaknesses of this hypothesis as it undergoes peer review. This paper will examine one key criterion for falsification: ocean heat.

Ocean heat plays a crucial role in the AGW hypothesis, which maintains that climate change is dominated by human-added, well-mixed green house gasses (GHG). IR radiation that is absorbed and re-emitted by these gases, particularly CO2, is said to be amplified by positive feedback from clouds and water vapor. This process results in a gradual accumulation of heat throughout the climate system, which includes the atmosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and, most importantly, the hydrosphere. The increase in retained heat is projected to result in rising atmospheric temperatures of 2-6ºC by the year 2100.

In 2005 James Hansen, Josh Willis, and Gavin Schmidt of NASA coauthored a significant article (in collaboration with twelve other scientists), on the “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” (Science, 3 June 2005, 1431-35). This paper affirmed the critical role of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW. “Confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance,” they maintained, “can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the ocean, which must be the principal reservoir for excess energy” (1432).

Monotonic Heating. Since the level of CO2 and other well-mixed GHG is on the rise, the overall accumulation of heat in the climate system, measured by ocean heat, should be fairly steady and uninterrupted (monotonic) according to IPCC models, provided there are no major volcanic eruptions. According to the hypothesis, major feedbacks in the climate system are positive (i.e., amplifying), so there is no mechanism in this hypothesis that would cause a suspension or reversal of overall heat accumulation. Indeed, any suspension or reversal would suggest that the heating caused by GHG can be overwhelmed by other human or natural processes in the climate system.

A reversal of sufficient magnitude could conceivably reset the counter back to “zero” (i.e., the initial point from which a current set of measurements began). If this were to take place, the process of heat accumulation would have to start again. In either case, a suspension or reversal of heat accumulation (excepting major volcanic eruptions) would mean that we are dealing with a form of cyclical rather than monotonic heating.

Most scientists who oppose the conclusions of the IPCC have been outspoken in their advocacy of cyclical heating and cooling caused primarily by natural processes, and modified by long-term human climate forcings such as land use change and aerosols. These natural forcings include ocean cycles (PDO, AMO), solar cycles (sunspots, total irradiance), and more speculative causes such as orbital oscillations, and cosmic rays.

Temperature is not Heat!

Despite a consensus among scientists on the use of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW, near-surface air temperature (referred to as “surface temperature”) is generally employed to gauge global warming. The media and popular culture have certainly equated the two. But this equation is not simply the product of a naïve misunderstanding. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), directed by James Hansen, and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change, have consistently promoted the use of surface temperature as a metric for global warming. The highly publicized, monthly global surface temperature has become an icon of the AGW projections made by the IPCC.

However, use of surface air temperature as a metric has weak scientific support, except, perhaps, on a multi-decadal or century time-scale. Surface temperature may not register the accumulation of heat in the climate system from year to year. Heat sinks with high specific heat (like water and ice) can absorb (and radiate) vast amounts of heat. Consequently the oceans and the cryosphere can significantly offset atmospheric temperature by heat transfer creating long time lags in surface temperature response time. Moreover, heat is continually being transported in the atmosphere between the poles and the equator. This reshuffling can create fluctuations in average global temperature caused, in part, by changes in cloud cover and water vapor, both of which can alter the earth’s radiative balance.

Hype generated by scientists and institutions over short-term changes in global temperature (up or down) has diverted us from the real issue: heat accumulation. Heat is not the same as temperature. Two liters of boiling water contain twice as much heat as one liter of boiling water even though the water in both vessels is the same temperature. The larger container has more thermal mass which means it takes longer to heat and cool.

Temperature measures the average kinetic energy of molecular motion at a specific point. But it does not measure the total kinetic energy of all the molecules in a substance. In the example above, there is twice as much heat in 2 liters of boiling water because there is twice as much kinetic energy. On average, the molecules in both vessels are moving at the same speed, but the larger container has twice as many molecules.

Temperature may vary from point to point in a moving fluid such as the atmosphere or ocean, but its heat remains constant so long as energy is not added or removed from the system. Consequently, heat-not temperature-is the only sound metric for monitoring the total energy of the climate system. Since heat is a function of both mass and energy, it is normally measured in Joules per kilogram (or calories per gram):

Q = mc∆T

Where Q is heat (Joules)

m is mass (kg)

c is the specific heat constant of the substance (J/kg/°C)

∆T is the change in temperature (°C)

The Thermal Mass of the Oceans

Water is a more appropriate metric for heat accumulation than air because of its ability to store heat. For this reason, it is also a more robust metric for assessing global warming and cooling. Seawater has a much higher mass than air (1030 kg/m3 vs. 1.20 kg/m3at 20ºC), and a higher specific heat (4.18 kJ/kg/°C vs. 1.01 kJ/kg/°C for air at 23°C and 41% humidity). One kilogram of water can retain 4.18x the heat of an equivalent mass of air. This amounts to a thermal mass which is nearly 3558x that of air per unit volume.

For any given area on the ocean’s surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it! Considering the enormous depth and global surface area of the ocean (70.5%), it is apparent that its heat capacity is greater than the atmosphere by many orders of magnitude. Consequently, as Hansen, et. al. have concluded, the ocean must be regarded as the main reservoir of atmospheric heat and the primary driver of climate fluctuations.

Heat accumulating in the climate system can be determined by profiling ocean temperature, and from precise measurements of sea surface height as they relate to thermal expansion and contraction of ocean water. These measurements are now possible on a global scale with the ARGO buoy array and from satellite measurements of ocean surface heights. ARGO consists of a world-wide network of over 3000 free-drifting platforms that measure temperature and salinity in the upper 2000m of ocean. The robotic floats rise to the surface every 10 days and transmit data to a satellite which also determines their location.

Pielke’s Litmus Test

In 2007 Roger Pielke, Sr. suggested that ocean heat should be used not just to monitor the energy imbalance in the climate system, but as a “litmus test” for falsifying the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis (Pielke, “A Litmus Test…”, climatesci.org, April 4, 2007). Dr. Pielke is a Senior Research Scientist in CIRES (Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences), at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. One of the world’s foremost atmospheric scientists, he has published nearly 350 papers in peer-reviewed journals, 50 chapters in books, and co-edited 9 books.

Pielke’s test compares the net anthropogenic radiative forcing projected by GISS computer models (Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al.) with actual ocean heat as measured by the ARGO array. To calculate the annual projected heat accumulation in the climate system or oceans, radiative forcing (Watts/m2) must be converted to Joules (Watt seconds) and multiplied by the total surface area of the oceans or earth:

[#1] Qannum = (Ri Pyear Aearth) .80

or, [#2] Qannum = (Ri Pyear Aocean) .85

Where Qannumis the annual heat accumulation in Joules

Ri is the mean global anthropogenic radiative imbalance in W/m2

P is the period of time in seconds/year (31,557,600)

Aocean is the total surface area of the oceans in m2 (3.61132 x 1014)

Aearth is the total surface area of the earth in m2 (5.10072 x 1014)

.80 & .85 are reductions for isolating upper ocean heat (see below)

Radiative Imbalance. The IPCC and GISS calculate the global mean net anthropogenic radiative forcing at ~1.6 W/m2(-1.0, +.8), (see, 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Summary for Policy Makers, figure SPM.2 and Hanson, Willis, Schmidt et al., page 1434, Table 1). This is the effective total of all anthropogenic forcings on the climate system. Projected heat accumulation is not calculated from this number, but from the mean global anthropogenic radiative imbalance (Ri). According to Hanson, Willis, Schmidt et al., the imbalance represents that fraction of the total net anthropogenic forcing which the climate system has not yet responded to due to thermal lag (caused primarily by the oceans). The assumption is that since the earth has warmed, a certain amount of energy is required to maintain the current global temperature. Continuing absorption will cause global temperatures to rise further until a new balance is reached.

Physically, the climate system responds to the entire 1.6 W/m2 forcing, not just a portion of it. But while energy is being absorbed, it is also being lost by radiation. The radiative imbalance is better described as the difference between the global mean net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its associated radiative loss. The global radiative imbalance of .75 W/m2 (shown below) would mean that the earth system is radiating .85 W/m2 in response to 1.6 W/m2of total forcing (1.6 – .85 = .75). For a more detailed discussion of radiative equilibrium see, Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: “Heat storage within the Earth system.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 331-335.

Projected Ocean Heat. Since observed heat accumulation is derived from measurements in the upper 700m-750m of the ocean, an “apples to apples” comparison with model projections requires some adjustments. Eq. #1, used by the GISS model, assumes that nearly all of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is eventually absorbed by the oceans (80%-90% according to Willis, U.S. CLIVAR, 1, citing Levitus, et. al.). Based on modeling by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al., (page 1432) upper ocean heat is thought to comprise 80% of the total as shown in the illustration. So, the calculated heat must be multiplied by 0.8 to subtract deep ocean heat (below 750m) and heat storage by the atmosphere, land, and cryosphere (see discussion on deep ocean heat and melting ice below).

Another method for calculating heat accumulation is shown in Eq. #2. This method assumes that only 71% (i.e., the fraction of the earth covered by oceans) of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is absorbed by the oceans. Hence, the net global anthropogenic radiative flux is scaled to ocean surface area. To compare to upper ocean measurements, deep ocean heat must be subtracted by multiplying the results by ~0.85. As shown in the illustration above, the deep ocean absorbs about 0.11 W/m2 of the total ocean flux of 0.71 W/m2 (estimates vary, see discussion on deep ocean heat, below). Since this equation is not used by climate models, it is not included in the following tables. But, it is displayed in the graph below as a possible lower limit of projected heat accumulation.

In his blog, “Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions” (climatesci.org, Feb. 9, 2009), Pielke projects heat accumulation based on an upper ocean mean net anthropogenic radiative imbalance of 0.6 W/m2as shown below (see Hanson, Willis, Schmidt et al., 1432). This is only a slight variance from his 2007 blog and affords the best opportunity for the GISS models to agree with observed data. A failure to meet this benchmark would be a robust demonstration of systemic problems.

Observed Ocean Heat. A comparison of these projections to observed data is shown below. Despite expectations of warming, temperature measurements of the upper 700m of the ocean from the ARGO array show no increase from 2003 through 2008. Willis calculates a net loss of -0.12 (±0.35) x 1022Joules per year (Pielke, Physics Today,55) from mid-2003 to the end of 2008 (Dr. Pielke received permission from Josh Willis to extend the ARGO data to the end of 2008).

According to a recent analysis of ARGO data by Craig Loehle, senior scientist at the Illinois-based National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, the loss is -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022Joules per year from mid-2003 to the end of 2007 (see Loehle, 2009: “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003.″ Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 101-104(4)). Loehle used a more complex method than Willis to calculate this trend, enabling him to reduce the margin of error.

My calculations for observed global heat, shown below, are based on observed upper ocean heat. Since upper ocean heat is calculated to be 80% of the global total (Eq. #1), observed global heat equals approximately 125% (1/0.8) of the observed upper ocean heat.

The projection displays a range representing the two ways of calculating heat accumulation discussed above. The upper limit assumes that virtually all of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is eventually absorbed by the oceans (Eq. #1). The lower limit scales the total radiative imbalance to the surface area of the oceans (Eq. #2). The upper limit represents the actual GISS model projection.

The 5.5 year accumulated heat deficit for GISS model projections (red line) ranges from 6.48 x 1022 Joules (using Willis) to 7.92 x 1022 Joules (Loehle, extrapolated to the end of 2008). Pielke is more conservative in his calculations, given the substantial margin of error in Willis’ data (±0.35). Accordingly, he assumes zero heat accumulation for the full 6 year period (2003-2008), yielding a deficit of 5.88 x 1022Joules (Pielke, “Update…”). Loehle’s work, which was not yet known to Pielke in February of 2009, has a much smaller margin of error (±0.2).

These figures reveal a robust failure on the part of the GISS model to project warming. The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO2. Indeed, the radiative imbalance was negative, meaning the earth was losing slightly more energy than it absorbed. Solving for Riin Eq. #1, the average annual upper ocean radiative imbalance ranged from a statistically insignificant -.07 W/m2 (using Willis) to -.22 W/m2(using Loehle).

As Pielke points out (”Update…”), in order for the GISS model to verify by the end of 2012 (i.e., one decade of measurements), the annual radiative imbalance would have to increase to 1.50 W/m2 for the upper ocean which is 2.5x higher than the .6 W/m2projected by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. (1432). This corresponds to an annual average accumulation of 2.45 x 1022 Joules in the upper ocean, or a 4 year total of 9.8 x 1022 Joules.

Using Loehle’s deficit, the numbers are even more remarkable. Assuming that heating resumes for the next 4.5 years (2009 to mid 2013), the annual average accumulation of heat would need to be 2.73 x 1022 Joules in the upper ocean, for a 4.5 year total of 12.29 x 1022 Joules. The derived radiative imbalance for the upper ocean would increase to 1.7 W/m2, or nearly 3x higher than the projected imbalance.

Improbable Explanations for the Failure of Heat Accumulation

Hidden Heat. A few explanations have been proposed for the change in ocean heat. One popular suggestion is that there is “hidden” or “unrealized” heat in the climate system. This heat is being “masked” by the current cooling and will “return with a vengeance” once the cooling abates.

This explanation reveals a fundamental ignorance of thermodynamics and it is disappointing to see scientists suggest it. Since the oceans are the primary reservoir of atmospheric heat, there is no need to account for lag time involved with heat transfer. By using ocean heat as a metric, we can quantify nearly all of the energy that drives the climate system at any given moment. So, if there is still heat “in the pipeline”, where is it? The deficit of heat after nearly 6 years of cooling is now enormous. Heat can be transferred, but it cannot hide. Without a credible explanation of heat transfer, the idea of unrealized heat is nothing more than an evasion.

DeepOcean Heat. Is it possible that “lost” heat has been transferred to the deep ocean-below the 700 meter limit of our measurements? This appears unlikely. According to Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al., model simulations of ocean heat flow show that 85% of heat storage occurs above 750 m on average (with the range stretching from 78 to 91%) (1432). Moreover, if there is “buried” heat, widespread diffusion and mixing with bottom waters may render it statistically irrelevant in terms of its impact on climate.

The absence of heat accumulation in deep water is corroborated by a recent study of ocean mass and altimetric sea level by Cazenave, et. al. Deep water heat should produce thermal expansion, causing sea level to rise. Instead, steric sea level (which measures thermal expansion plus salinity effects) peaked near the end of 2005, then began to decline nearly steadily. It appears that ocean volume has actually contracted slightly.

Melting Ice. Another possibility is that meltwater from glaciers, sea ice, and ice caps is offsetting heat accumulation. Perhaps the ocean temperature has plateaued as the ice undergoes a phase change from solid to liquid (heat of fusion).

This explanation sounds plausible at first, but it is not supported by observed data or best estimates. In a 2001 paper published in Science, Levitus, et. al. calculates that the absorption of heat due to melting ice amounts to only 6.85% of the total increase in ocean heat during the 41 year period from about 1955 to 1996:

Observed increase in ocean heat (1955-1996) = 1.82 x 1023 J

Observed/estimated heat of fusion (1950’s-1990’s) = 1.247 x 1022 J

This work is quoted by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. and further supported by their calculations (1432), which are even more conservative. Given a planetary energy imbalance of approximately +0.75 W/m2, their simulations show that only 5.3% (0.04 W/m2) of the energy is used to warm the atmosphere, the land, and melt ice. The balance of energy is absorbed by the ocean above 750 m (~0.6 W/m2), with a small amount of energy penetrating below 750 m (~0.11 W/m2).

The absorption of heat by melting ice is so small that even if it were to quadruple, the impact on ocean heat would be miniscule.

Cold Biasing. The ARGO array does not provide total geographic coverage. Ocean areas beneath ice are not measured. However, this would have a relatively small impact on total ocean heat since it comprises less than 7% of the ocean. As mentioned above, quality controlled water temperature below 700m is not available, though the floats operate to a depth of 2000m. Above 700m, the analysis performed by Willis includes a quality check of raw data which revealed a cold bias in some instruments. This bias was removed (Willis, CLIVAR, 1).

Loehle warns that the complexities of instrumental drift could conceivably create such artifacts (Loehle, 101), but concludes that his analysis is consistent with satellite and surface data which show no warming for the same period (e.g., see Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, 2009: “Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth.” Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 178-189 (13)). So it is unlikely that cold biasing could account for the observed changes in ocean heat.

In brief, we know of no mechanism by which vast amounts of “missing” heat can be hidden, transferred, or absorbed within the earth’s system. The only reasonable conclusion-call it a null hypothesis-is that heat is no longer accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer a radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing. This not only demonstrates that the IPCC models are failing to accurately predict global warming, but also presents a serious challenge to the integrity of the AGW hypothesis.

Analysis and Conclusion

Though other criteria, such as climate sensitivity (Spencer, Lindzen), can be used to test the AGW hypothesis, ocean heat has one main advantage: Simplicity. While work on climate sensitivity certainly needs to continue, it requires more complex observations and hypotheses making verification more difficult. Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis: When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.

Writing in 2005, Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al. suggested that GISS model projections had been verified by a solid decade of increasing ocean heat (1993 to 2003). This was regarded as further confirmation the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis. Their expectation was that the earth’s climate system would continue accumulating heat more or less monotonically. Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it.

It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate. One may argue that projections for global warming are measured in decades rather than months or years, so not enough time has elapsed to falsify this hypothesis. This would be true if it were not for the enormous deficit of heat we have observed. In other words, no matter how much time has elapsed, if a projection misses its target by such a large magnitude (6x to 8x), we can safely assume that it is either false or seriously flawed.

Assuming the hypothesis is not false, its proponents must now address the failure to skillfully project heat accumulation. Theories pass through stages of development as they are tested against observations. It is possible that the AGW hypothesis is not false, but merely oversimplified. Nevertheless, any refinements must include causal mechanisms which are testable and falsifiable. Arm waiving and ad hoc explanations (such as large margins of error) are not sufficient.

One possibility for the breakdown may relate back to climate sensitivity. It is assumed that most feedbacks are positive, amplifying the slight warming (.3º-1.2ºC) caused by CO2. This may only be partially correct. Perhaps these feedbacks undergo quasi-cyclical changes in tandem with natural fluctuations in climate. The net result might be a more punctuated increase in heat accumulation with possible reversals, rather than a monotonic increase. The outcome would be a much slower rate of warming than currently projected. This would make it difficult to isolate and quantify anthropogenic forcing against the background noise of natural climate signals.

On the other hand, the current lapse in heat accumulation demonstrates a complete failure of the AGW hypothesis to account for natural climate variability, especially as it relates to ocean cycles (PDO, AMO, etc.). If anthropogenic forcing from GHG can be overwhelmed by natural fluctuations (which themselves are not fully understood), or even by other types of anthropogenic forcing, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the IPCC models have little or no skill in projecting global and regional climate change on a multi-decadal scale. Dire warnings about “runaway warming” and climate “tipping points” cannot be taken seriously. A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.

Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis. Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections. His blogs have been greeted by the chirping of crickets. In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence. Open and honest debate has been marginalized by appeals to consensus. But as history has often shown, consensus is the last refuge of poor science.

* William DiPuccio was a weather forecaster for the U.S. Navy, and a Meteorological/Radiosonde Technician for the National Weather Service. More recently, he served as head of the science department for St. Nicholas Orthodox School in Akron, Ohio (closed in 2006). He continues to write science curriculum, publish articles, and conduct science camps.

286 thoughts on “The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat”

My own logic fails me on the following, and always has. Would someone grant me the time to explain?
From the beginning of this post: Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise.
My logic says if an hypothesis is correct, then there would be no test by which it could be proved false. (The final sentence is clear and understood.)
What am I missing?

@Roger Carr
Just because an observation appears to verify a hypothesis does not make the hypothesis “correct”. This is why NASA spent millions of dollars on the Gravity-B probe, to again test some of Einstein’s work, and iron out whether or not gravity waves exist.
I can come up with a hypothesis to explain why Frog’s are showing up deformed all over the world. I can observe multiple factors that tend to support my hypothesis. But if someday in the future it is shown that in reality, these frogs were performing body modifications on themselves and that wasn’t included in my hypothesis, well that means I was wrong and my hypothesis is falsified. (presuming that I expected that Kermit wasn’t looking for a few piercings)

Correct me on this, but I think that Popper thought that ultimately all hypotheses would be proven false. It was just a matter of time,it may last 1000yrs until proven false but until that time came,the hypothesis would be correct.

Roger as examples.
The second law of thermodynamics would be falsified by the development of a perpetual motion machine.
I.e. It can be “conceptually” falsified. Actually falsifying it – well to my knowledge it hasn’t been done yet? (And I would be astonished if it was).
To re-phrase your statement.My logic says, if an hypothesis is correct, then there would be no test that could be demonstrated by which it could be proved false.
A correct and complete scientific hypothesis would be in principle falsifiable, i.e. it must rule out some phenomena from happening. But such phenomena would also never be observed to occur.
Another example.
Special Relativity holds that mass increases with velocity and tends to infinity as velocity approaches the speed of light. If you could demonstrate a massy object travelling just under the speed of light did not demonstrate the predicted increase in mass then you would falsify the theory of Special relativity.
Robust scientific theories keep surviving such tests.
Falsifiability comes in with “it must rule out some phenomena from happening.”
Which is why Climate Change is pseudo-science – it rules out nothing, it can get warmer, colder, wetter, dryer, etc….
Man made emissions of CO2 cause catastrophic global warming is actually well formed and falsifiable – it’s just the falsification events (i.e. lack of ocean heat, growing ice, cooling temps, no tropic hot spot) are ignored.
I hope that helps.

Great analysis!
I completely agree that global mean temperature is not the correct measurement to track, but rather total heat contents in the system, or at least ocean heat contents, which should account for the vast majority of total heat. I am still missing a thorough explanation on how does global mean temperature relates to total heat contents (if they relate at all when considering variations during small time intervals).
Therefore, I was highly disappointed when I saw that there is just a small section devoted to analyzing the evolution of the heat contents of the oceans in the IPCC 2007 technical report. In the graph included on that small section there is a decrease in ocean heat contents from 2003 to 2005.
By the way, the only mention of the ocean role for storing heat in the summary report is that “Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the heat being added to the climate system.”

@Roger Carr,
If a scientic theory is to have real value, it must be possible to use this theory to predict what will happen in a certain case. This always gives an opportunity to prove it false. According to Popper, the more ways a theory can be proven false, the greater the scientific value of the theory is. This is because the more specific a theory is, the more ways it can be proven wrong.
Let’s say that someone put forward a suggestion that a decrease in sunspots to zero will cause the temperature to fall by exactly 10 degress within 8 weeks.
If the temperature falls by exactly 10 degrees 8 weeks later, in the view of Popper it still doesn’t prove my theory. It could have been that big vulcano that did it. Or the Al Gore effect. But, as long as nobody has a better theory, I’ll be king of the hill in climatology with my new theory.
But, if the temperature has stayed the same 8 weeks later, my theory is crap and can safely be rejected.
This is why the following theory has little scientific value:
“The world will on average become warmer in the future due to C02. We don’t know exactly when and by how much and it could even get colder in the meantime. Or it could be a lot warmer very soon. Anything is possible. ”
How would you go about to falsify a theory like this?
According to Popper there is no test by which a theory can be proved true, only tests by which it can be proved false.

The way I see it – if you want to prove that a stone floats, you measure it in all different ways, calculate the amount of air in it and whatnot. The test to disprove your hypothesis is that you simply throw the stone into a bucket of water. If it floats, your hypothesis is proven. If it sinks, it is disproved, despite the fact that all your other measurements say that it should float. This is of course a gross simplification, but that’s the way I see it.
Best wishes,
Janez

Roger,
“My logic says if an hypothesis is correct, then there would be no test by which it could be proved false.”
Your remark is true, but what Popper says is that in order for a theory to be verifiable, it has to be falsifiable, that is, it has to be possible to make a test that can potentially unprove the theory. Of course, all tests will fail to unprove the theory if the theory is indeed correct.
The problem with AGW is that it is not falsiable because their proponents explain every possible outcome of the climate as a direct consequence of AGW.

AGW is one of the biggest scams that I have seen in my lifetime. The critical symptom of this scam is Gore’s claim that this is all settled science. It is not. As Freeman Dyson said this is a fraud. After almost a decade of no warming and now a little cooling, the AGW scam is getting a little tattered around the edges. But the politicians push on, because to them it is a question of power and control not science.

Excellent article, good work. Re: falsifiability, it’s not that there must be a test which does prove the hypothesis false, it’s that there must be a test which *could* prove it false.
If the hypothesis is “all cats have tails”, then there is a clear test – if anyone were ever to discover a cat without a tail, then the hypothesis is false. It doesn’t matter whether anyone ever has, or ever will, find such a cat. The hypothesis is testable.
If the hypothesis is “some humans are actually aliens that are identical in every way to normal humans”, then there is no test. The hypothesis predicts that all tests on the aliens will give results exactly like the results from humans, and it (the hypothesis) is therefore worthless.
If the hypothesis is modified to “some humans are actually aliens that are identical in *nearly* every way to normal humans”, then it becomes testable again – if we can discover one of the few ways in which the aliens differ, then we can identify them.

The ‘can’ in ‘can be proved false’ expresses a logical possibility not a metaphysical possibility. In other words, to count as falsifiable or scientific for Popper a hypothesis must be constructed in such a way that from it may be derived specific predictions which cannot be proved deductively, e.g. tautologies, but which would require empirical investigation to establish.
‘All mammals have a copy of gene X’ may be true, but it is falsifiable in the sense that it is not excluded by logic alone that a mammal somewhere will be found not to have a copy of X.

Roger Carr (00:07:31) :
“My logic says if an hypothesis is correct, then there would be no test by which it could be proved false.”
A very understandable question. The essential point is that there must in principle be a test capable of showing the hypothesis to be false. For instance, the hypothesis that “Earth’s moon is made of green cheese” was always falsifiable, and when it became possible to go there it was. Likewise, the hypothesis that “a moon of a currently unknown planet in a far-off galaxy is made of green cheese” is also falsifiable since it is theoretically possible to go there (even though practically impossible).
By contrast, the hypothesis that “The universe, with all memories, etc. was created fifteen seconds ago” is not falsifiable.

So, what is the role of evaporation from the ocean surface in all of this? It seems like an increase in atmospheric temperatures, should result in an increase in evaporation, as well as an increase in absolute humidity, which could at least partially account for the lack of sea level rise and would be a “hidden” or at least latent heat sink, due to the heat of vaporization. I realize that such effects may be small, but you should at least mention them in your analysis.

I thought this was an excellent paper and well worth the read, however, it would be good to hear from Bob Tisdale on Ocean Heat Content – see this post from his site:http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/latest-revisions-to-ocean-heat-content.html
It certainly seems there may be problems with measuring Ocean Heat Content and it looks from the data that the trend has been up quite strongly until 2003- then there are divergent trends depending on who you believe (see fig 5).
Interestingly (though not surprisingly) Gavin Schmidt regularly quotes Levitus et al as the one who has this right. Could this be another example of data manipulation given the risks to the AGW movement of the findings as reported above by DiPuccio?

Put simply…..any hypothesis or theory must be able to make predictions about the behaviour of a system. These predictions can be tested against observations or experimental results. The key point is that no matter how many times the predictions match observation these results are not proofs of the hypothesis. They may increase our confidence in the hypothesis but do not prove it.
However, if a result is found that does not agree with the hypothesis then the hypothesis is disproven. Just one result is all it takes.
Thus we know from the observations of Eddington etc. that Newtonian gravity is not a complete description of gravity. To date Einstein’s theories and predictions there from are matched by all observations. However, were new discoveries made that did not conform with the predictions of relativity then we know that Einstein’s hypotheses with respect to gravity are incomplete.

In principle, there must be a test capable of saying, If x happens, then y is not true.
It doesn’t mean that x will ever happen, just that in principle it could. A scientific hypothesis that states “there are no such things as aliens”, would be falsified if an alien turned up.
Some good news, meanwhile, that new book Air Con by Ian Wishart has just debuted at #1 on the NZ national bestsellers list, despite it being the peak of the Mother’s Day marketing period.http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/05/air-con-book-debuts-at-1-on-bestseller-list.html
Apparently it’s going on sale in Australia next week.

I think the sentence should actually read “…there must be a test by which it could be proved false, depending on the result of the test.”
For example, you can test the theory of gravity by dropping an apple from a tree. If it doesn’t fall then the theory of gravity must be flawed in some way. That’s not going to happen (almost certainly!), but you can certainly test it.
The problem with much of the AGW theory is that we are told that it is global climate change not just warming and pretty much any result is further proof of that change. Take for example the Antarctic issue. We were told that the cooling of the Antarctic matched AGW theory, until it turned out it might be warming, at which point we were told that matched too. Thus that part of the theory is not falsifiable as there is no temperature change which could prove it wrong.
So the point of this article is to select an issue where there has been a definitive, falsifiable, prediction based on the theory and evaluate that prediction. The prediction is “AGW will cause oceans to warm.” Thus if the oceans actually cool, then the statement must be false and the theory itself must flawed in some way.
The further point in this article is that if the AGW proponents try to get around these uncomfortable results by saying things like “error bars make it impossible to know”, or “maybe the heat is hidden lower down” etc. then what they are actually saying is “this part of the theory is not falsifiable. i.e. There is no possible set of temperature measurements which can prove AGW theory wrong. And if it’s not falsifiable then it is not science.
So they are between a rock and a hard place – accept the results and the theory must flawed, reject the results and it’s no longer science.

@ Roger Carr
I think the key sentence here would be “In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. ”
A good scientific hypothesis embracing falsifiability would be one that allows you to make falsifiable predictions, whereby you can tell whether you hypothesis seems to be correct to a certain degree of accuracy, or uncertainty.
In Einstein’s case, general relativity seemed to explain certain already observed peculiarities, such an aspect of Mercury’s orbit around the sun. But the theory wasn’t really given full credence until it had made a prediction (regarding the amount starlight was bent by the Sun’s gravitational field). In this case, his prediction matched the results of his test (made during a solar eclipse when people could look at star locations in the vicinity of the sun), and the theory was considered greatly supported by this, but the construction of this test allowed the possibility that results would match Newtonian predictions, or something else entirely, in which case it would clear there was a problem with the theory.
I haven’t had time to read through all of this article, but imagine the author might draw attention to the fact climate science rarely makes predictions that are falsifiable in reasonable time frame, given the immediate nature of major policy decisions based up it, or that when predictions are made, and data seems to disagree significantly with them, that it doesn’t seem to faze many academics within the field or policy makers who listen to them.
And I’d agree, in my opinion, there seems to be a distinct double-think regarding climate models and their predictions: when it comes to short-to-mid term predictions that don’t pan out, people who draw attention to it are told they’re expecting too much from the models, but when it comes to making major policy decisions based upon them, decision makers are told the models have everything dialed in to 90+% accuracy, 100 years into the future…

For many years Newton and his theory of gravity was ‘correct’ and no test was available to prove him wrong.
Along came Einstein and observations subsequently proved Newton wrong. But Einstein has not been proved right, just no one has proved him wrong yet. In fact (and I am a scientific dummy) does not quantum theory prove Einstein and his cosmological constant wrong in some areas?

The recent and continued cooling of the planet is testament enough that the AGW hypothesis has already failed, but the important point is that Global Warming has entered the mainstream political arena. To finally overturn the science – politics has to be be overturned as well, and the instrument for doing that is Cap&Trade legislation. The very real pain this world will feel in attempting to mitigate rises in CO2 will eventually cripple whole countries resulting in governments being toppled. No politician will escape the wrath of ordinary people who will have to endure higher taxes, unemployment and poverty just to appease environmentalists.
It is little wonder that people like Hansen and Lovelock are now growing ever more concerned about Cap&Trade, their green revolution is being directly threatened by a deeply flawed policy. Their growing sense of unease is being fueled by the knowledge that as ordinary people understand the dire consequences of Global Warming politics the masses will turn to an understanding of science that makes better sense of the current facts, i.e. why is the planet cooling?

I’ve just checked in a dictionary on the meaning of “hypothesis” and it reads as follows. ” Hypothesis. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.” And, with regard to it’s use in Philosophy, ” A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of it’s truth”
It might be prudent for all in the media who seem to use the term of hypothesis to mean an absolute truth in reference to AGW, to reflect on what the term actually means.

Your logic is correct “if an hypothesis is correct, then there would be no test by which it could be proved false.” all test of a hypothesis are an attempt to falsify that hypothesis. All attempt to falsify a correct hypothesis fail.

@Roger Carr
IIRC, it is simply a matter of what constitutes “science”.
Say I believe a theory that my neighbor is an alien, an alien who can appear in human form with 100 per cent fidelity, and that this alien will never admit to being an alien. This theory is not “scientific” because there is no way to ever disprove the theory.
Now say I have a theory that my neighbor is an alien, an alien who can appear in human form but who’s DNA will still contain traces of alien DNA. This theory is potentially “scientific”, if we can get the suspected alien to submit to a DNA test. If the “alien” passes the test and all their DNA is 100% human, then my theory has been disproved.
Now say that I have a theory that he’s an alien, and that my theory says that we expect to find alien DNA. He takes the test, and the test results are that he is 100% human. That really should be the end of my theory. But instead I say, “no, wait, it is obvious that he has found a way to “hide” his DNA and just because we didn’t find alien DNA this time, doesn’t mean that there isn’t some alien DNA in the “pipeline” somewhere…”
Well, that last one started out as “scientific”, but then slipped into something else.

Correct me if I’m wrong here…
It’s not that a theory has been falsified that proves it right (that would be weird), it’s how You’re supposed to falsify it that makes it a scientific theory.
I.e. Popper doesn’t say that stuff must be falsified to be true (again, weird…) he just says what distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory.
We can prove that a diesel engine won’t run with coffee as fuel. Therefore that is a scientific theory.
We can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. Therefore the existence of God isn’t a scientific theory.
We can’t prove that all the things that AGW-proponents say will happen won’t happen. Therefore AGW is not science.
Simple as that. 🙂

Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections.
Because the oceans stopped rising, and the rise that was measured pales when compared to the noise of tides. AGW fails the only test I have available: Walk down to the shore I have known for 50 yrs. There must be some famous photos out there 100 yrs old that nail the point: Enormous heat loss.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv
The last decade of the 20th century averaged 0.268°C above the 61-90 baseline.
So far this century is averaging at 0.428°C above the baseline.
It a very safe bet that the first decade of the 21st century will end up the warmest since records began.
The warming trend continues.
The last five years have been warmer than the five before, which in turn were warmer then the five before that, which themselves were warmer than the five before them.
When average temperatures go up, that’s called warming.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It’s physical properties and role as such have been accepted science for over a century; since about 1860.
CO2 levels have risen signifcantly since the onset of industrialisation; from around 280ppm to around 385ppm. There is no scientific dispute on this.
That increase is due to human activity. We know this from the entirely uncontroversial fact that burning fossil fuels creates CO2, and the equally obvious fact that we’ve been burning a lot of fossil fuels since the onset of industrialisation.
The isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere also confirms this.
That an increase in C02 should generally lead to an increase in temperature is not some wild and extravagant speculation. It’s exactly what accepted scientific understanding tells us to expect.
It might be possible that there is some completely unknown and as yet to be discovered mechanism that is responsible for the warming trend. But that seems unlikely since we’d also have discover some hitherto completely unknown reason why the increase in CO2 isn’t causing it.
Because basic physics tells us IT SHOULD BE.Reply: Cutting and pasting your previous comments from other boards will get tiresome. If you wish to engage in discussion then do so, but you’re not doing it this way. ~ charles the moderator

Manuel (00:54:21) explains: “Your remark is true, but what Popper says is that in order for a theory to be verifiable, it has to be falsifiable, that is, it has to be possible to make a test that can potentially unprove the theory.”
Ah… Manuel… I believe you have defined the weak spot in my understanding with this response. Your words in the above: that is, it has to be possible to make a test that can potentially unprove the theory blows away the fog.
If only Mr Popper had used the word, potentially in the first place. My thanks, sir!
And to Chris Long (01:04:26) – Disputin (01:06:57) – Richard T (01:20:58) – kmye (01:26:46); you also understood the dislocation in my perception, and have my thanks, as do all who have answered my cry, for giving me your time.
Now I will refresh this page, and assure all others who have since answered that I will read your explanations with appreciation.

Sean if the temperatures are going up so fast how is it possible for a lagging indicator to stop warming? If you look at the GISS temperature records you see the land surface temperatures increasing much faster then the sea surface temperatures and at a much higher level now. A lag time would be expected and has been seen in the past so no great suprise there. What is suprising is that with the sea surface temperatures so far behind the land surface temperatures that they could have any probability of doing anything other then increasing as they catch up in the heating process.

@ Roger Carr, Glen
Of course, if a hypothesis is correct, all tests trying to prove it wrong will fail.
The thing is: there have to be tests, that – before you do the test – include potential outcomes that would prove the hypothesis wrong. If you can still spin any test outcome to somehow keep your belief in the hypothesis up, then you needn’t do the test.
The (sometimes frustrating) example for such a test in the climate change debate is observing the temperature. At least here in Europe one can get the impression that any observed temperature is in line with the AGW hypothesis.
To put it short and cynical the interpretation of the outcome always looks a bit like this: If it’s cold it’s ‘weather’, if it’s warm it’s ‘climate’

2002:
Solar maximum, solar irradiance about 1 W/m2 more than now.
2009:
Solar minimum, solar irradiance about 1 W/m2 less than in 2002.
->
Solar forcing about 0,2-0,3 W/m2 less in 2009 than in 2002.
Climate models do not contradict short-term cooling of the oceans in any way.
The article is the best example of cherry picking I’ve seen for a long time! Not only it uses so short time period it has nothing to do with the term “climate”, it also makes up short-term predictions out of GISS long-term predictions. That is just nasty.

Trevor 1:36:05
Einstein’s theory is a mathematical model that attempts to describe how the universe behaves more accurately than Newton’s. Neither Einstein nor any other competent scientist believed (believes) that it completely describes reality.
There is a very simple mind experiment that will illustrate one of its shortcomings. According to the theory, if a spaceman gets in a rocket and travels at relativistic speeds through the universe time will slow down for him and he will not age at the same rate as the rest of the universe. Well and good, but the theory cannot differentiate between the spaceman rocketing about while the universe continues unaccelerated or the universe accelerating about while the spaceman sits unaccelerated.
Obviously the two are not equivalent, there is an “isness” to the universe that is not described in the mathematical equations of the theory. Whatever it is that everything is “relative” to is more complicated than the velocity of light. Newton was “right” in the sense of the local gravity field. Einstein was “right” in the sense of the relation to the observed velocity of light, but he had no illusions that he had arrived at the ultimate description of reality.
There is a deeper reality that is yet to be described. I doubt that the next step will be the ultimate.

PaulHClark: You wrote, “…it would be good to hear from Bob Tisdale on Ocean Heat Content…”
I ended the post you linked with, “A decade from now, when researchers sort out the problems of measuring Ocean Heat Content, when they agree on the methodologies to be used to calculate it, it may serve as a worthwhile measure of climate change. At present it does not.” A clarification: that comment referred to long-term representations of Levitus et al, Ishii and Kimoto, and Domingues et al. All three papers came out within a year of one another:http://s5.tinypic.com/24v33t4.jpg
What I found amusing was the choice of years for the trend comparison. The data runs from 1955, but they start the trends in 1969 to exaggerate them. With that spike in the late 1950s, the Domingues trend would be significantly lower with a 1955 start date.
And the changes to the Levitus data (2005 vs 2009) actually lowered the trend from their previous paper. It appears that the shift in trend was caused by the elimination of the significant dip in 1957 and the lowering of the rise in recent years.http://i36.tinypic.com/25jfvnr.jpg
The changes to Levitus data erase the hard-to-explain hump in the 1970s, leaving the basic curves of global OHC and Global SST anomalies in better “agreement”.http://i36.tinypic.com/o70r9w.jpg
What’s missing, as with all other studies of this type, is the impact of cloud amount on OHC:http://i36.tinypic.com/332xesh.jpg
The above illustrations are from my post “Revised Ocean Heat Content” here:http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html

re steve – SST temperatures are without UHI bias and if HadCRUT/GISS gets combined with AMSU anomalies after 1979, you get almost exactly the same anomaly trend as for SST, quite shallow during the last 30 years. Last 30 years for ground datasets are contaminated badly by UHI/land use changes. Both SST and air temps started to drop at the same time so there is not much lag there.

Thanks for this really excellent article! William DiPuccio has an Isaac Asimov-ish way of clearly explaining the situation.
The conclusion is inescapable: the “CO2 causes runaway global warming” hypothesis has taken about 4 or 5 torpedoes; it’s going down. It will be interesting watching the response from everyone who’s hung their hat on this falsified hypothesis.
Will the government go ahead anyway with C&T, or with some other unnecessary BIG tax, BIG gov’t “solution” to the non-problem of global warming? My guess is yes, and damn the science.

Sean
I’ve read the same stuff on many AGW sites all of course with the same misunderstanding of what has actually been happening, the same serious misunderstanding of cause and effect and the same tragic misunderstanding of the CO2 balance and mans part in it. I also had the sense to read what was being said on non-blinkered sites such as this which in many ways sensibly debunk all of the accepted wisdom that I’d collected before. Do what I did Sean and actually read what is posted here. Being a contributor is far better than being a Troll, seriously.

The house of cards of AGW is getting closer and closer to collapse. For example, a few years ago this was one of the main arguments of the pro-AGW viewpoint: The Hockey Stick graph proves that the surface temperature change of the past century is unprecedented in the last 1000 years – so it must have been caused by anthropogenic forcings, primarily CO2.
Fortunately, the MBH98 Hockey Stick has been disproven, and many other important AGW arguments are also tending to disappear today.

Roger Carr (00:07:31) :
My own logic fails me on the following, and always has. Would someone grant me the time to explain?
From the beginning of this post: Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise.
My logic says if an hypothesis is correct, then there would be no test by which it could be proved false. (The final sentence is clear and understood.)
What am I missing?
According to Popper’s version of knowledge, a theory isn’t a theory unless it contains falsifiable content. Therefore, all truth is contingent on the possibility it can be proved incorrect.
“All snowflakes are different, unless you can find two identical ones.”
A theory without falsifiable content is merely a statement of belief.
“God exists, but you can’t see him.”

I note that Anthony is running Google ads. I just saw one that takes one to a fantastic (as in of or relating to fantasy) AGW site. I think we should check those sites out from time to time, just to find out what they are saying.

Re Popper, it is important to note that his philosophy on science is not the final word on the matter. Basically Popper tried to establish a deductive way to test scientific theories – at leat in the disproof sense. David Stove, in “Anything Goes” has presented what I believe to be a comprehensive debunking of Popper’s program to set up a deductive philosophy of science.
In essense, the ‘fuzzy idea’ that a disconfirming experiment disproves a theory, whereas any amount of confirming experiments never proves it, has a certain amount of reasonableness about it. But the reason is not that we can prove theories false by experiment; we cannot, any more than we can prove them true. Logically, any experiment you can think of cannot disprove any given theory. An elephant suddenly appears in the room. Disproves Newtonian mechanics? No, because it might be that a clever magician created an illusion. And so on. No matter how strong the disproof, some conceivable constellation of factors other than the theory’s falsity might be responsible. It is worth noting in this regard that Newtonian mechanics has definitely not been disproved by experiment; it is just that the conjectures needed to save it compared with relativistic mechanics became increasingly unreasonable and unbelievable. But no logical disproof has ever been, or can ever be, offered.
My thoughts on the matter are that confirmations and disconfirmations are basically the same sort of thing, but typically, although not necessarily, disconfirmations constrict the realm of possible explanatory factors much more strongly, and so they are much more immediately believable, than confirmations. But there have been striking confirmations too. The quantum-mechanical prediction that an experiment in the future can determine whether a photon in the past acted as a wave or as a particle is so striking and so contrary to all expectation, that when this was tested and found to be true, it constituted a powerful confirmation of the theory. But it was not proof, any more than any disconfirmation can be proof. In the end, we have to choose our beliefs based on having good reasons for belief, not on having proof (in either the positive or negative direction).

Sven (03:24:57) :
Jeremy (00:19:58) :
“Is this using the ARGO data after it was “corrected” for the “cold bias”?”
I have the same question
Loehle’s analysis is independent from Willis’, and shows cooling. Willis said after his reanalysis that the trend was flat or very slightly cooling for 2003-2007.

Sven (03:24:57) :
Jeremy (00:19:58) :
“Is this using the ARGO data after it was “corrected” for the “cold bias”?”
I have the same question
————————————————————
From the section of the article titled “Cold Biasing” (just above “Analysis and Conclusion”):
“Above 700m, the analysis performed by Willis includes a quality check of raw data which revealed a cold bias in some instruments. This bias was removed (Willis, CLIVAR, 1).”
“

Excellent post! Thank you, William DiPuccio. This pulled together a lot of separate threads in my head. The loss of ocean heat should not be happening according to the prevailing AGW theory. But it is. Ergo….
I wonder what the warmists will do to try to save face. Probably ignore the issue as they have any other contradicting real world evidence. I started looking into global warming out of curiosity as to how much and when. It didn’t take me long to discover the science behind it was weaker than i had been led to expect.
And not long after that I saw that the proponents weren’t interested in discussion, in real learning, nor in the joy of discovery. It became perfectly clear to me after seeing them in action that global warming is political and has nothing to do with science.
The word ‘science’ has been hijacked and made into a political weapon and thereby has lost all its meaning.
This is sad.

Very well presented. Maybe one of the best posts on WUWT to date. Solid analysis, solid math, solid science. Although the general public would have a hard time wrapping their head around it, the concept of the temperature of air has very little to do with the air itself (other than the water vapor component) is fundamental & powerful.

Bob Tisdale (04:29:33) :
Bob – Thank you – very clear and helpful as always.
I was particularly interested by your “closing note” in the November08 post to which you referred – an interesting coincidence indeed!
Do you have any observations to make about DiPuccio’s paper?

UK Sceptic (00:54:32) :
I’m with Roger Carr. I don’t get the falsifiability statement either. Sorry if I sound a bit dim.Having read Popper many years ago in graduate school, what made clear to me the point of falsifiability was his comparison to astrology. Astrology is not science, because it is not falsifiable. Nothing ever happens that is contrary to the beliefs or predictions of those who believe in astrology. If nothing can ever falsify the predictions of a belief system, then the system is not science. If it pretends to be science, it is pseudo-science.
Several others have already called attention to how AGW seems to fall into this description of pseudo-science, or non-falsifiability. If it warms, that’s proof of AGW. If it cools, that’s proof of AGW. Simply put, a theory that is always correct, in the eyes of its proponents, no matter what happens, is not falsifiable, and is thus not science.
On DiPuccio’s article, MattN expressed hope that it will receive wider readership. I’m sure it already has, as it was first posted at Climate Science (Peilke Sr’s web site). The value of DiPuccio’s article is that it calls attention to a specifically falsifiable component of the AGW hypothesis, and then tests it, and shows that it fails the test.
In and of itself, this doesn’t disprove AGW, or prove that AGW is not scientific. Tests of this nature are like laboratory experiments. Sometimes the experiments go awry. Which is why science looks for repeatable observations, tests, experiments. Maybe the effect of AGW is being “masked” by other factors, though DiPuccio does a good job of considering this, and other plausible explanations, for what went awry with this experiment (test).
Science progresses by the slow accumulation of knowledge. In the terms of Thomas Kuhn’s concept of “normal science,” the outcome of DiPuccio’s test is an “anomaly” (somehow, that strikes me as ironic, if not iconic). Students of the philosophy of science will know that Kuhn and Popper were rivals, and each considered the other wrong. Using terms from my own discipline (economics), I’ve long considered Popper’s view of science as normative, and Kuhn’s view as positive. I.e., Popper had it right as to how science ought to progress, but Kuhn had it right as to how science actually progresses. In Kuhn’s view, the reigning theory in any field of science constitutes a paradigm. Scientific research that fits the paradigm is “normal science.” Failed experiments, those which are inconsistent with the paradigm, are “anomalies.” As long as the anomalies cannot be explained, the paradigm reigns supreme. But in many instances, the anomalies accumulate to the point they can no longer be ignored, and someone posits a theory that can explain them, thus bringing about a change of paradigm, or “scientific revolution.”
DiPuccio is calling attention to an anomaly of the AGW hypothesis. That the troposphere is not warming more rapidly than the earth’s surface is another anomaly of the AGW hypothesis. I’m sure WUWT can think of other “anomalies.” For now, “climate science” is practicing what Kuhn called “normal science” and is either ignoring the anomalies, or, so it would seem in some cases, working hard to manufacture evidence that will resolve some of the anomalies.
There are, clearly, “believers” in AGW who can imagine no circumstances under which the theory would be false. But pointing this out will not change anything. Thus calling AGW pseudo-science, which it sometimes seems to be, will not change anything. Change will come through the accumulation of anomalies.
In somewhat ironic fashion, AGW will eventually be proven to have been scientific, by being falsified.

I’m sure there will be a psychology PhD in seeing how the Sh1ts leave a sinking rat.
Politicians will look all innocent and say the scientists lied, presuming on us knowing that they are all professionally stupid and could not have been expected to think for themselves.
Journalists will seize on some meaningless little event and declare it:
THE PROOF THAT AGW IS WRONG
it’ll probably become a Rumsfeld/Cheney neocon plot around then too.
Scientists, if they are wise, will conduct their own witch-hunts very publicly in order to try and regain the public’s respect.
Since peer-review by cherry-picked co-conspirators has been shown to be dangerous maybe forums like this provide a public peer-review?

Tuukka Simonen (04:09:31) : Your complaint is unwarranted. It assumes that variations in TSI impact OHC in some noticeable way. Here’s a graph of three reconstructions of OHC since 1955.http://s5.tinypic.com/24v33t4.jpg
There are almost five complete solar cycles in there. Please identify the impact of the each solar cycle on OHC. Thanks. Don’t forget to isolate and eliminate volcanic aerosols and ENSO.
Regards

I have worried about carbon capture and now I read this:
“Burying carbon also has hidden long term costs. The oceans of Earth are naturally
removing carbon from the biosphere and burying it in vast deposits of limestone,
dolomite and buried coral reefs and plant material.
“By this and other natural processes, Earth will eventually lose its vital atmosphere
and become a dead planet like the dusty Moon and red Mars. To deliberately assist
this process is anti-life and anti-green. Recycling to the biosphere some carbon that
has been buried for millennia in coal deposits will prolong the era of luxuriant life on
our green planet.
“Leaving the carbon dioxide in the biosphere will allow plants to use it. The green
world will flourish, extract the valuable carbon and return the oxygen to the
atmosphere for survival of the animal world. Therefore it should be of great concern
that the process of Carbon Capture and Burial will steal from the biosphere 2.7
tonnes of oxygen for every tonne of carbon buried. This morbid process would better
be called “Oxygen Capture and Burial”.
“If we are ever silly enough to build the CCB White Elephants, they will be as useful
to us as the pyramids were to the Pharaohs – we will be creating our own burial
tombs.
“If Carbon Capture and Burial is the answer, it must have been a very silly question.”http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/carbon-capture.pdf
Is this true?

A word from the author….Please keep in mind, when discussing falsifiability, that ocean heat is the criteria Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et al used as verification for their hypothesis (1993-2003). So this is their proposed test for confirmation, not one that I cherry picked. Pielke simply turned it around and used it as test to falsify the hypothesis.
Also, while Popper is not the last word on the veracity of hypotheses, in this case at least, falsifiability is a reasonable test. After all, the AGW hypothesis is rather straightforward in what it predicts!
As far as a change in solar irradiance goes: Just a musing…If there has been a slight drop which has caused this cooling, then perhaps heat accumulation is tracking with TSI rather than CO2. In either case the correlation with CO2 is suspect or worse.

As Bob Tisdale’s post shows, there are a few different studies which show flat or slightly increasing OHC beyond these two by Loehle and Willis showing a decline. There are lots of little adjustments required for the Argo floats and the XBT probes so, even though these studies are using similar methodology, one can have slightly different results.
On balance, on average, the numbers are declining from 2003 to 2008 (but there was a large increase in the years immediately before this however). [I would tend to accept Willis’ numbers since he has taken a lot of “heat” from the pro-AGW research community for showing the basic numbers and not adjusting them to match up.]
Generally, the OHC numbers are very inconsistent with global warming theory.
Since there has been no warming in the atmosphere lately, the theory says the heat has to be absorbed within the oceans. With no warming in the atmosphere lately, the theory says the oceans should, in fact, be warming even faster than “normal” right now.
Nope, something is broken in the theory or there is something else going on that we don’t understand.

This is an excellent thread topic reminding us that 7/10ths of the Earth are ocean and are the repository of, did I read it right?, 95% of the heat. So ocean temperatures should by rights receive at least 95% of the attention, rather than the Arctic Ocean or Wilkins Shelf or other research hotspots all these teams home in on. But why analyse such a short time interval. Surely oceanographic temps have been measured for over a century. There must be a huge record base. I just did a quick search and found downloadable bottle sample data by grid square for the NE Atlantic going back to the C19th here:http://www.ices.dk/Ocean/data/surface/surface.htm
Personally I think alarmists are about giving up on warming and are trying to launch another balloon on acidity instead.

“One popular suggestion is that there is ‘hidden’ or ‘unrealized’ heat in the climate system.”
My calculations (accurate to the 10th finger on my left hand) result in the existence of Dark Heat (a la dark matter), to explain the deficit.
Now, where’s my grant money?! I want it I want it I want it!!!

While I understand what the overall conclusion of this article is saying, I think the author is confused in his use of terms; at least as this old physicist understands the terms. Once I hit the section “Temperature in Not Heat!”, the author lost me a bit.
What the author is trying to describe as “heat” is really the total energy content of a closed system. “Heat” is a term reserved for the amount of energy transferred to/from a system. Hence, heat has units of Joules, NOT J/kg. Joules per kilogram is the energy DENSITY of the system.
Temperature is, as the author describes, the average kinetic energy of the molecules. What the author wants is the integral of the velocity distribution curve (Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution) in order to obtain the total energy of the system, and then divide that number by the total mass of the system.
Temperature DOES give an indication of the total energy in that the mean will move up or down as the total energy in the system changes, i.e. the peak of the MB distribution will shift as energy is added or removed from the system.
I maybe picking nits, but I wish the terms were used in their proper form; it would add to the strength of the article.

AGW is like the Clerics of old attributing everything to the Devil.Maybe so, but even Satan is not omnipotent.Same for AGW.This article is one more nail in the AGW coffin.
Sort of like the times of Copernicus and Galileo.This holds to my own concept of human
nature not changing all that much…
Direct observation speaks for itself..

Patrik –
Yes, that’s what was knocking around in my head.
There have to be rules – a hypothesis must set goalposts. If one doesn’t set goalposts of what would disprove the hypothesis BEFORE it is tested, one could claim just about anything. Then it meanders into the realm of the fantastic, rather than science.

William DiPuccio
A terrific article, sir. Well-written and easy to understand. That is a lot of missing heat, and appears to me to be sufficient to falsify the IPCC’s theory of AGW.
Your article also makes it clear that if we wish to track the warming and cooling of our planet’s climate system, we must track the total heat of the system and not just atmospheric temperatures.
William, if you are reading this, how would you suggest that we combine, say, the ARGO ocean data with the UAH AMSU data into a single total climate system heat metric?

I greatly enjoyed the article. I have just one criticism. The oceans do not contain “heat” but “internal energy”. Heat is the transfer of energy usually mediated by a temperature gradient, just as work is the transfer of a mechanical process. It is similar to the observation that rivers contain water and not rain. The best article on this point is “The Use and Misuse of the Word ‘Heat’ in Physics Teaching” by Mark W. Zemansky published by The Physics Teacher in the September 1970 issue (pp 295-300).

Sean-
When you factor in the fact that both the 80s and 90s were significantly cooled by major volcanic eruptions (best estimate is around .1C for both decades), and the 2000s have had no such eruption, you will find that there has actually been a slowing of decadal warming since the 1980s.

Well written and understandable article. I shall ply others with it.
Sven (03:24:57) :
Jeremy (00:19:58) :
“Is this using the ARGO data after it was “corrected” for the “cold bias”?”
I have the same question
Sven, Jeremy, as I read it, it specifically says that the Argo data was corrected for the cold bias.

Re Sea Level and warming oceans; I found some interesting results from the Hilo, Hawaii data back to 1927. I was comparing the sea level at Hilo, against the cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The data shows a mis-match.“Another odd thing about Figure 3 is the increase in sea level [at Hilo] from 1945 through 1961. This was the same time period as a cold phase of the PDO.”http://energyguysmusings.blogspot.com/2009/05/sea-level-surprises-at-hilo.html

Solar input will penetrate water to a depth of many meters, while the long wave radiation only has an effect to a depth of 1mm or so. If the climate feedback is negative, then it likely does not kick in so effectively for solar short wave as much as long wave greenhouse radiation.

Your logic is correct “if an hypothesis is correct, then there would be no test by which it could be proved false.” all test of a hypothesis are an attempt to falsify that hypothesis. All attempt to falsify a correct hypothesis fail.
No exactly. If no test can prove it false… it’s not falsifiable! An hypothesis can pass or fail a test. This means a failing, valid, repeatable test can falsify an hypothesis.

I fully agree that the use of the word “heat” is too loose in the climate community. “Internal energy” is more proper than “heat storage.” It seems to me that the usage came about to maintain a distinction between radiant energy “flux” measured in W/m^2, and Q measured in Joules. Talk about confusing, Hansen’s paper (cited in the article) measures “heat content” in W/m^2.
It was suggested that perhaps atmospheric temperature can be combined with ocean energy to create one index. In order to do this we would have to use equivalent potential temperature (theta e) rather than dry bulb temperature in order to measure moist enthalpy. I believe it would be a lot of effort for little gain since nearly all of the energy in the climate system is in the oceans. For any given surface area, the top 2.6m of ocean has the same “heat” capacity as the entire atmophere above it.
Finally, it was asked why such a short time span was used for the sample in this paper. In terms of observations, it is only very recently that we could create a temperature profile like this (to 700m) and with a relatively fine grid spacing. Using older data (mostly SST) would require a lot of interpolation (read: guesswork) and adjustments (read: fudging) if it were even possible.

@ William Sears (06:44:59) :
Beat me too it. Last quarter when I was teaching intro physics we had a lot of fun with heat! Students, and the general public, misuse the word heat in every way imaginable. Hopefully my students will no longer do so (hopefully).
Ben

John: “What is your opinion on the different results between your data sets showing a decline and the studies that show a flat or increasing “heat” content?”
I am not sure what studies you are referring to. Keep in mind that I did not analyze the raw data. Both of the studies I used were from ARGO data provided by Willis. They used a different method of analysis, but both showed some decrease. That’s probably not much of an answer!

A reversal of sufficient magnitude could conceivably reset the counter back to “zero” (i.e., the initial point from which a current set of measurements began). If this were to take place, the process of heat accumulation would have to start again. In either case, a suspension or reversal of heat accumulation (excepting major volcanic eruptions) would mean that we are dealing with a form of cyclical rather than monotonic heating.
Something of the kind (but, of course, not to zero) happened during the 97-98 El Nino. (starting, of course, the cooling process of the years after)
Why a sudden “reversal”?; could it be possible the “stirring the cup of tea”
phenomenon? , if so, which was the geological event which caused it ?
If one sees the graphs shown by NOAA, it happens that in them almost always oranges and reds predominate, showing their favorite “positive anomaly”. It would seem that they take different years as their starting points..

Roger Carr (00:07:31) :My logic says if an hypothesis is correct, then there would be no test by which it could be proved false. (The final sentence is clear and understood.)
What am I missing?
Your logic is correct; I have always thought that Popper’s rule is incomplete and was drawn up wrongly. As it says what it says, the rule proposes that all hypotheses, even valid hypotheses, for being true must have the property which allows us to demonstrate they are false. Popper’s statute should say that all hypotheses must be susceptible to demonstration by experimentation, that is, that all hypotheses must be susceptible of being submitted to analytical processes of verification. If only Popper had been clear, we would not be suffering of dark matter, dark energy, big bangs, AGW, etc. fantasies.

John Galt (07:34:45):Your logic is correct “if an hypothesis is correct, then there would be no test by which it could be proved false.” all test of a hypothesis are an attempt to falsify that hypothesis. All attempt to falsify a correct hypothesis fail.
No exactly. If no test can prove it false… it’s not falsifiable! An hypothesis can pass or fail a test. This means a failing, valid, repeatable test can falsify an hypothesis.
If a hypothesis is concordant with verified theories and with the observation of real phenomena, it would have passed the test, still if that hypothesis couldn’t be falsified through controlled experimentation. Under these circumstances, hypotheses prove to be veridical if the predictions derived from such assertions are verified by means of repeated observation of their occurrence in nature.

Do you have a source for the model projections, that ocean heat should be increasing monotonically?
Talking about ‘hidden heat’ is no different than making claims about unknown natural processes that keep climate stable, as I do.

Basil (05:48:27) :
I too had read Popper and Kuhn (long ago!), but I never made your insightful comparison between the two. For sure, you need only read the work of climate modelers and see their reactions to any conflicting data (anomalies, by Kuhn’s description) to understand that the science practiced by most of these folks carries a lot of personal/emotional baggage; like almost everyone, they don’t want what they have invested so much time in to be proven wrong.
I once read an interesting comment by a climate modeler about a paper that suggested little or no positive climate feedback for CO2, based upon physical arguments about the atmosphere. The modeler said that the paper was clearly wrong, and cited several other papers which he claimed showed this. I took the time to read the abstracts of these other papers, and they all turned out to be descriptions of the results of different climate models. So the modeler obviously thought anything that conflicts with model results must be wrong!
My personal experience is that a few, a VERY few, outstanding researchers focus on understanding anomalies, and seem to know that only anomalies show the path to scientific progress. Lets hope there are some of these people (maybe Josh Willis?) in the climate research field, or else the global warming hysteria could go on for a long time.

For example, William DiPuccio emitted his theory a week after I had wrote an article on induced negative absorption by photon streams incoming from the Sun and outgoing from the surface. It seems William Dipuccio had not read my article and, obviously, I didn’t know his theory. Nevertheless, his theory is concordant with what I found on induced negative absorption and it is explained easily if my assessment had been applied on his theory.
On the other hand, my assessment and Dipuccio’s theory are based on observed phenomena and/or their fundamental statements have been derived from analytical processes.
Not the case for AGW idea because the AGW idea is not falsifiable (it’s an irrefutable hypothesis) given that its proponents always have a counterargument against real data, i.e. even when the observed phenomena are opposed to what the idea argues. For example, I say fairies exist; a skeptic refutes my idea saying that fairies have not been seen ever. I could counter-argue his assertion by affirming that fairies are invisible, that they fear humans and thus they are always hidden from human sightings. At the end of the debate, I could argue that my opponent cannot prove fairies don’t exist, so the fairies are real. It is an argument ad ignorantiam.

Since no one else has mentioned it yet, I will. The wise Arnt Bernaerts, in 1992, said that “The climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means”.
It would be hard to improve on that formulation.
=======================

Mike Monce (06:25:38) :
Mike,
You are correct, and a little background might be in order. Roger Pielke Sr. has for years (as long as I can remember) advocated the position that measuring atmospheric temperatures was a poor index of AGW because temperature of the atmosphere could be a poor indicator of a change in heat content given unknowns like humidity, winds, volume…
He thought that the temperature of the oceans was more indicative of the heat content of the oceans that these temperatures would be the tell for AGW.
Jeff

[sarcasm] “You” “deniers” are so pathetic. You will never understand or overcome the superior capabilities of the “true climate scientists”.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090504141047.htm
“Climate Experts Warn That Short-Term Snapshots Of Temperature Data Can Be Misleading: Focus Instead On The Bigger Picture”
“In their paper “Is the climate warming or cooling?” David R. Easterling of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center and Michael Wehner of the Computational Research Division at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory note that a number of publications, websites and blogs often cite decade-long climate trends, such as that from 1998-2008, in which the earth’s average temperature actually dropped slightly, as evidence that the global climate is actually cooling.
However, Easterling and Wehner write, the reality of the climate system is that, due to natural climate variability, it is entirely possible, even likely, to have a period as long as a decade or two of “cooling” superimposed on the longer-term warming trend.”
In essence what they are saying is that you “deniers” may think your digital video record of the events over the last decade and the still photographic images collected over the last three decades give you a good idea impression of whats going on, but in order to really understand what is going on you have to look at the oil paintings of the true climate scientists. Just look at the colours! Doesn’t the gold frame just set off our hypothesis nicely?[/sarcasm]

MikeN (09:30:10) :Do you have a source for the model projections, that ocean heat should be increasing monotonically?
Talking about ‘hidden heat’ is no different than making claims about unknown natural processes that keep climate stable, as I do.
Well… heat is not hidden, but dispersed into so many microstates that we could think it’s not there. We could detect it as soon as that stored energy is transferred to other systems. Thinking that for verifying that the heat is there we must feel it burning our skin, is the main error of AGW idea.

“. Popper doesn’t say that stuff must be falsified to be true (again, weird…) he just says what distinguishes a scientific theory from a non-scientific theory.”
This may be what Fermi (or some other nuclear physicist) had in mind when he famousy dismissed someone’s hypothesis as “not even wrong.”

MikeN: “Do you have a source for the model projections, that ocean heat should be increasing monotonically? Talking about ‘hidden heat’ is no different than making claims about unknown natural processes that keep climate stable, as I do.”
Please note that I said more-or-less monotonically. There is hardly anything in weather or climate that is truly monotonic! Modelers have claimed that surface temperature does not rise monotonically, and I agree. But ocean heat is a different animal because it is used to calculate the anthropogenic radiative imbalance (Ri). Hansen’s 10 year test of uninterrupted heating (1993-2003) confirmed that the average Ri was steady or increasing over the period. If Since CO2 is increasing steadily and forcing from GHG dominates climate change, then stored ocean energy must build steadily in order to eventually raise global surface temperatures (which have a lag time).
On the other hand, if it is conceded that the process is not monotonic (which apparently it is not!), then what mechanisms in the climate can stop or reverse the accumulation of energy? How long will the interruption last? Does this mean that climate is dominated by natural processes? etc. That’s where the hypothesis is now in my view, and in order to save it, these questions must have solid answers.

To summarize the realclimate links I posted, they consider the ocean heat numbers to be in line with model projections, with the latest post in Jan 2008.
Why wouldn’t ocean heat content change with a cooler planet? Why does it have to be accumulating monotonically?

Excellent paper. Yet more evidence that the projected warming for this decade has completely failed to materialize. When will our government wake up, realize AGW theory is false or flawed, and send the scientists back to the drawing board?

This article has no real news in it. Global temperature has plateaued so we should expect a pause in the increase in ocean heat content.http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/ocean-cooling-and-global-warming/?apage=2
Here is a comment by Josh Willis from the above link.
“..
Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. The same is true for the warming trend observed by NASA satellites; it too is in good agreement with climate model simulations. But more important than agreement with computer models is the fact that four years with no warming in the upper ocean does not erase the 50 years of warming we’ve seen since ocean temperature measurements became widespread….
It is important to remember that climate science is not a public debate carried out on the opinion pages of newspapers. What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouring over countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climate works and scrutinizing every aspect of each other’s work…”
One possibility that has not been mentioned is that recent plateua in global temperature may be a in part a result of anthropogenic aerosals as a result of recent economic growth in Asia. Also it has been mentioned by Bob Tisdale that the data on ocean heat content may have problems.
Of all of the contributors to the earths energy balance the greenhouse effect seems to have the least uncertainty, and anthropogenic aerosals the largest.

Great bit on AGW and falsifiability.
Last fall at the EO Lacase Lecture Series at Bowdoin, Sandy (Lyman) Page
discussed falsifiability. In serious physics, falsifiability is the key tool
to advance of any bit of theory or research. No progress on early
cosmology would be possible without use of falsifiability.
The concept got its start with the disproof of the unique-ness of
Euclidean geometry more than 100 years ago, then fleshed-out
by Godel and Boole about 100 years ago. See Hofstader’s “Godel,
Escher and Bach” and “Metamagical Themas” for lots of easy
background. This, combined with Euler’s destruction of the
millennia-old wall between geometry and arithmetic caused lots
of headaches, and influenced both Marx and Nietzsche for the
worse.
Research into stability of binary systems lead to the development
of Tri-State Logic in the 1960s, and the abandonment of
classical binary logic by philosophers. Fuzzy Logic, chiefly as
pushed by Kosko, continues to change philosophy and computer
science. See Kosko’s “Fuzzy Thinking” for some good detail.
All this came about due to Godel’s insight about the lack of provability
of closed logical systems. Such systems can only be dis proven.
Popper’s take on earlier work is easier to swallow, but no more
useful.
AGW is a classic unfalsifiable system. It is not science. It is a
political movement, or a religion. Invented religions for political
purpose are not new. Scientology was created as a tax dodge
in the 1950s. Kwanza was created as a tax dodge and for identity
politics in LA in 1965. Both are still around. Expect AGW to be
around for a while as a tax and religious movement. The science
part of it is long dead.

To answer some questions: yes, the data I used was corrected by Josh Willis for the biases he had identified previously. Why such a short analysis? Because the network of floats only became complete in 2003.5.

YAY!
I think this is a top top top issue, potentially the single clinching disproof of AGW that is needed, that AGW cannot wriggle out of (unlike even Smokey’s best temperature graphs). This has simplicity. Kudos to William for doing the work.
HOWEVER…
it needs improving. There are still some key issues that give AGW leeway to wriggle. Simonen mentions solar fluctuations – maths is needed to show these leave the conclusions unaffected.
And Bob Tisdale writes “A decade from now, when researchers sort out the problems of measuring Ocean Heat Content, when they agree on the methodologies to be used to calculate it, it may serve as a worthwhile measure of climate change. At present it does not.” Again, the identity of the method used by Hansen et al 2005, or Levitus et al 2001 (both URLs in DiPuccio’s refs above), needs to be made very visible, and any remaining problems (as suggested by Bob T) discussed.
I feel that the proof is already strong enough to withstand sniping solar and methodology issues – I think any corrections are order of magnitude less than the discrepancy – but this is MY guess! It surely needs to be demonstrated. And when that’s done, then is the time to write a really really simple piece and get this upcoming blockbuster paper rubber-stamped by someone of Pielke’s calibre and peer-reviewed standing, so that even Sean cannot wriggle out of it or miss the meaning and weight of the words.

David L. Hagen (09:50:04):Popular article at NASA’s Earth Observatory reviewing the issues:
Correcting Global Cooling Nov. 2008
Fortunately, we know that oceans absorb incident solar energy and store it for a long time, otherwise they would be saying the atmosphere is heating up the oceans… Err… Have they already said it? Well, I forgot AGW is an irrefutable idea.
During daytime, the incident solar radiation upon the surface is absorbed by both, land and oceans.
The photon stream incoming from the Sun drives the emission of photons (the few absorbed by our almost transparent atmosphere to SWIR) from the atmosphere towards the surface.
Energy is stored in surface and subsurface materials, and the in the oceans down to 740 meters deep.
There is a large load of heat stored there, which is transferred to the surface during nighttime. As the air blows over the surface, it takes the energy stored in both systems and warms up. Thus, the photon stream from the surface to the outer space is stronger during nighttime than during daytime because during daytime the solar photon stream overwhelms the spontaneous emission from the surface towards the atmosphere, so the photons emitted by the surface get back towards the surface. The latter happens during daytime.
During nighttime, the ground, the ground subsurface materials and the upper layers of oceans emit photons and form a photon stream which overwhelms the spontaneous emission of photons from the air. The air warms up and emits photons which are induced to flow towards the outer space (downwelling radiation is transformed in upwelling radiation and it’s not magic neither a singularity, but a natural verified process). Photons emitted by the air towards the surface are directed towards the upper layers and, from there, to the outer space.

As of November, 2008, Mr. Willis (see chart) did not appear to agree with the author’s interpretation of his temperature work:
“Although he has “caused a stir” among his colleagues in the past by criticizing models’ inability to simulate how ocean heat storage varies on short-term time scales, he stresses, ‘I have said from the beginning that the fact that the long-term trends in models and observations do agree so well is what is most important’.”

This is a great post. However I need a definition of “anthropogenic radiative forcing” on the ocean. Does this imply that the ocean is heated by long wave radiation from the atmosphere?
If this is the case then I can see why there is a problem. When the ocean heat content was increasing, heat was transferred to the atmosphere because this can happen by conduction, so the air temperatures went up. However this does not work in reverse. The oceans below the surface are heated mainly by short-wave radiation from the sun. So you can increase the greenhouse gases as much as you want – it will not cause any significant increase in the heat content of the oceans.
I think a post on how water bodies are heated would also be great.

John: “It is available here: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/latest-revisions-to-ocean-heat-content.html. At the bottom of the post, referring to Levitus, et al (2009). Just curious if you had seen it, or had any insight into the differences. Seems like quite a divergence. I’d love to hear anyone else’s opinion as well.”
Craig Loehle (who just joined this forum) would be more qualified to comment on the Levitus article since he did the actual analysis. In brief I would say, first, that if the data I used is wrong and the oceans are still warming slightly, this fact would tend to confirm the hypothesis but not prove it. An attribution test must be performed which would attempt to falsify the idea that the warming is anthropogenic. After all, it could just be a natural cycle. Warming in and of itself is not proof of AGW. Second, I would say that I could have saved myself a lot of work!

Re: Gerald Machnee (10:47:44) :
“I think a post on how water bodies are heated would also be great.”
I completely agree. I have been baffled by the expectation that a warming atmosphere will cause a warming ocean. Given that heat rises, the only way a warm atmosphere could increase the surface temperature of the ocean is to reduce the radiative heat trasnfer from the ocean, but would this not increase heat loss due to evaporation?
And how does warmer water on the surface get transferred to the deeps? The up whelming and down whelming explanations “feel” contrived to me.
What are the heat transfer mechanisms?

There is an increase in ocean heat 1955- 1996
Observed increase in ocean heat (1955-1996) = 1.82 x 1023 J
Then a decrease after 2003
OCEAN HEAT DEFICIT FOR GISS MODEL PREDICTIONS, MID 2003-2008 (5.5 YEARS)
ARGO Data
Analyzed by Willis
ARGO Data
Analyzed by Loehle (extrapolated to end of 2008)
Pielke
(based on Willis)
-6.48 x 1022 Joules
-7.92 x 1022 Joules
-5.39 x 1022 Joules
(-5.88 for 6 full years )
The increase is 3 times the value of the decrease. Over 7 times as long.
Not sure what happened 1997-2002, assumed flat.
So the rate of decrease (2003-2008) would appear to be twice as great as the rate of increase (1955-1996).
The climate models predict a steady increase.
The models are busted for me.
More important though would be decades long cycle which total ocean heat. I wonder what drives that, most likely not CO2 in the atmosphere.

Excellent article. The data isn’t quite compelling yet, but this does seem like a reasonable method.
Basil’s post at (05:48:27) is excellent too.
The core is:
“I’ve long considered Popper’s view of science as normative, and Kuhn’s view as positive. I.e., Popper had it right as to how science ought to progress, but Kuhn had it right as to how science actually progresses.”
Too true.

Gerald Machnee (10:47:44) :This is a great post. However I need a definition of “anthropogenic radiative forcing” on the ocean. Does this imply that the ocean is heated by long wave radiation from the atmosphere?
I agree… Let me speculate a bit on AGW meaning of “anthropogenic radiative forcing”. I think they are referring to humans as an external operator on radiative heat transfer which is capable of modifying the free radiative heat transfer. They would be equaling humans with cosmic radiation or something like that; a fan, for example.

Amazing collection of data, very good indeed.
Just a question : why are all governments including Europe and China taking measures against global warming ? Why is everybody discussing a reduction of CO2 emission in house heating, cars or industry facilities ? Why do we bother that even cows produce methane and other greenhouse gases ? Prof. Stocker has received the nobel price together with Al Gore for his groundbreaking research involving 800 000 years old ice, yealding precious data on climatic changes – you know what they are saying. Why are glaciers worldwide melting away like softice ? I am regularly seeing these pictures.
So why are governments, numerous organisations, individuals etc worrying about the phenomenon if it does not exist for shure ?
What if change was not anthropogenic but a natural fluctuation leading us to a period of draughts where only repiles could survive ?
Is the human causality the all decisive factor ?
Thank for your great assiduity and diligence.
btw does internet traffic not increase GW too ?

So what is it that I am missing ? I read this very learned and detailed paper by William DiPuccio, all about storing heat (which is NOT a noun) in the ocean.
Nowhere did I find any explanation of some physical process by which thermal energy could actually be stored in that ocean.
This is not rocket science; the earth’s oceans comprise about 70% of the total surface area; but when you map the incoming solar radiation on to that it is clear that somewhat more than 70% of the total arriving solar energy lands in the ocean; and at l;east the deep portions of the ocean act as near black body absorbers, since the Fresnel reflection from the surface is about 2% for normal incidence and about 3% for the total range of incidence angles. So about 97% of more than 70% of the arriving solar energy enters the ocean waters.
Well I dare say that more than 97% of all the vehicles that enter the Holland Tunnel subsequently emerge; so I would not say the Holland Tunnel stores cars, just because they enter it.
Same goes for thermal energy entering the ocean. We know from spectral absorptance curves that the peak wavelengths of the solar spectrum also happen to propagate deepest into the ocean, with shorter, and longer wavelengths being absorbed more quickly.
Eventually, that radiation is abosrbed by something; and thereby HEATS (verb) the surrounding water. Thermal conduction now sets in as a result of molecular collisions, so that thermal energy starts to spread almost isotropically from where it was deposited; some down, some up, some all around; but part of it heads in the direction of even deeper water.
Unfortunately oceanic salt water always has a positive temperature coefficient of expansion right down to its freezing point; so any water heating will result in expansion, lowering the density of that water, which then sets up an upward convection current, carrying the heated water (and the thermal energy) upwards towards the surface.
Common experience is that convection virtually always trumps conduction; and the mass transport of warmed deeper waters towards the surface, picking up further energy and expansion as it rises, ultimately brings that energy back to the surface where it is again lost to the atmosphere and space, by radiation, conduction, and evaporation.
Sadly, conduction to the ocean depths, never gains any traction, which is why it is experimentally observed that the ocean is in fact not storing that arriving energy at all; but is putting it on a continuously running conveyor belt that returns it to the atmosphere and back into space.
Now what of that other radiation source; the roughly 300K thermal radiation from the heated atmosphere (due to GHG etal).
The official NOAA energy budget diagram insists that about 324 W/m^2 “Back Radiation” is emitted from the atmosphere back to the surface; while only 235W/m^2 is emitted upwards fromt he atmosphere towards space. I’m not sure I believe that directional split; but for now I will take their word for it; so we have a source of 324 W/m^2 of long wave IR radiation also heading to earth, and once again presumably more than 70% of that striking the ocean. for some reason that 324 W/m^2 of back radiation is much more than the 168 W/m^2 from the sun. (I’m not kidding; these are NOAA’s numbers)
But what we are interested in is what happens to that 70+% of 324 W/m^2 of back radiation that strikes the ocean surface.
Unlike the solar spectrum; the ocean is virtually opaque to long wave IR, and that energy is all absorbed in less than the top 10 microns of the ocean surface layer, and that massive heating of the surface film is going to result in a lot of prompt evaporation, plus additional EM radiation and conduction to the atmosphere; so that energy too is not getting stored in the ocean.
To me it is not surprising that scientists cannot find this thermal energy that is supposed to be getting stored in the ocean; I cannot find a physical mechanism for storing it; the ocean rejects it all, jaut like the Holland Tunnel doesn’t store automobiles even though a lot of them enter it.
George

“”” Nasif Nahle (10:45:00) :
David L. Hagen (09:50:04):
Popular article at NASA’s Earth Observatory reviewing the issues:
Correcting Global Cooling Nov. 2008
Fortunately, we know that oceans absorb incident solar energy and store it for a long time, otherwise they would be saying the atmosphere is heating up the oceans… Err… Have they already said it? Well, I forgot AGW is an irrefutable idea. “””
Unfortunately; it is a popular misconception that the surface (ocean or land) heats during the day, and cools during the night; as in “solar photons overwhelming spontaneous emissions”.
Yes the surface does cool during the night; but it cools at a far faster rate during the daytime; and the places that really cool fast are the hottest mid day sun tropical deserts, where surface temperatures can exceed +60 deg C.
The surface never stops cooling and it is only the greater irradiance during the day, of the arriving solar energy, that masks the greater amount of cooling that is going on at the same time.
The arctic, and the Antarctic do not cool planet earth; the tropical deserts and tropical oceans do, and they do it best during the hottest part of the day.
George

The definition of RF from the TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held ﬁ xed at the unperturbed values’.

The assumption is that the ocean is in quasi-equilibrium with the diurnal solar heating and long wave radiation to (and from) the atmosphere.
The oceans are not just heated by short wave radiation. There is significant transport of heat downward due to fluid motion, where the surface and the abyss are again assumed to be in quasi-equilibrium.
So yes, provided that nothing else changes*, the ocean depths will (eventually) get warmer if the atmosphere gets warmer.
*) important disclaimer
-oms

@sean
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming is an hypothesis. It is not a proven fact.
First, you have to account for the lack of greenhouse gas signature in the atmosphere. If greenhouse gas (of any source) were the source of the warming, the atmospheric hotspot should be there but isn’t. This is a great example of how an hypothesis is falsified!
Another issue is the cause and effect between CO2 and warming. The historical data shows warming causes more CO2 in the atmosphere. There is no example in history of CO2 causing global warming. Again, another test failed.
The ice core data also shows no runaway greenhouse effect and no climate tipping points. How is it that CO2 is high after an ice age starts, if CO2 is an important cause of climate change? Strike three.
It also has not been proven that all the increases in atmospheric CO2 are due to human activities. It is completely false to say that CO2 levels are stable without human input. We know warming causes more CO2 in the atmosphere. A more logical conclusion is the natural forces that caused all past changes in CO2 levels in the past are still in effect.
Likewise, there is a false belief at work here, the belief that the climate is stable without human influence. This is completely false.

I have the same question as Jeremy and Sven
“Is this using the ARGO data after it was “corrected” for the “cold bias”?”
Could the person who wrote the article or someone else who has the knowledge like Bob Tisdale give an answer? Thanks.

To me it is not surprising that scientists cannot find this thermal energy that is supposed to be getting stored in the ocean; I cannot find a physical mechanism for storing it; the ocean rejects it all, jaut like the Holland Tunnel doesn’t store automobiles even though a lot of them enter it.

The “storage” concept depends on the concept of an equilibrium ocean (with whatever circulation is already in place). In this picture of the world, different time constants have to be allowed for different vertical layers of the ocean; these are due to differences in circulation time. The mix layer will respond rather quickly to heating from the surface, the upper ocean, within a few years, and the deep ocean perhaps decades or centuries. “Storage” would be available to fill the “vacuum” when one side of system is perturbed from the equilibrium state. Bad choice of words, but that’s how I understand the argument being made.

George Smith wroteTo me it is not surprising that scientists cannot find this thermal energy that is supposed to be getting stored in the ocean; I cannot find a physical mechanism for storing it; the ocean rejects it all, jaut like the Holland Tunnel doesn’t store automobiles even though a lot of them enter it.
You are correct about the bulk of the solar radiation being convected back up towards the surface. On average the skin layer at the top of the ocean has a slightly lower temperature than the layer immediately below it. That is what drives the convection of the energy stored by the receipt of solar radiation. An increase in the downwelling radiation from the atmosphere, absorbed in the top millimeter of ocean right at the surface, will increase this skin surface temperature and reduce the rate of convection of solar heat towards the surface. This is the physical mechanism by which the heat lost by the ocean is reduced, and is how GHG’s cause global warming. This temperature increase has actually been measured versus the change in downwelling radiation.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/
It is easy to see that this will happen if one writes the equations for energy transport into and out of this surface skin layer from above and below.

“Bill Illis (06:10:14) :
Generally, the OHC numbers are very inconsistent with global warming theory.
Since there has been no warming in the atmosphere lately, the theory says the heat has to be absorbed within the oceans. With no warming in the atmosphere lately, the theory says the oceans should, in fact, be warming even faster than “normal” right now.
Nope, something is broken in the theory or there is something else going on that we don’t understand.”
A theory of mine published elsewhere seeks to deal with that conundrum.
I suggest that what matters is the balance between the net energy emissions of all the oceans to the air at any specific moment and the energy reaching the oceans from the sun at that time.
Thus:
1) OHC will decline if the ocean SSTs are high UNLESS the solar input is strong enough to put even more energy into the oceans (the period 1975 to 1998 when oceans were warm at the surface but there was a solar grand maximum)
2) OHC will increase if the ocean SSTs are low UNLESS the solar input is so weak that it still does not put enough energy back into the oceans (as at present when the SSTs are falling but the sun is currently weak).
I am aware of the apparent smallness of solar variation but on the basis of observations that must only be an issue of climate sensitivity.
Any energy being generated within the Earth is probably also relevant to the balance at any given moment.

George,
One more point about this which may clarify things for you.
It is easy to see that the downwelling radiation will cause in increase in temperature of the surface skin.
Your claim, correctly, that the evaporation rate and convection away from the surface will go up when additional downwelling radiation hits the surface. In order for that to happen the temperature of the surface must increase.

oms (11:56:31) :
Gerald:
Radiative forcing is defined in IPCC 2007 (Ch. 2, p. 133):
**The oceans are not just heated by short wave radiation. There is significant transport of heat downward due to fluid motion, where the surface and the abyss are again assumed to be in quasi-equilibrium.**
Thanks for the help and comments.
I still think there is room for discussion here. I am not too familiar with oceanography, but I did contact some who have done work in the field and their view was that only a little of the ocean heating was due to mixing. I was told that shallow bodies of water such as streams and lakes will get a higher percentage of heating from mixing than oceans. I agree that there is downward transport of heat due to fluid motion but this may be water from the top few meters that was heated by short wave radiation.

“Gerald Machnee (10:47:44) :
This is a great post. However I need a definition of “anthropogenic radiative forcing” on the ocean. Does this imply that the ocean is heated by long wave radiation from the atmosphere?
If this is the case then I can see why there is a problem. When the ocean heat content was increasing, heat was transferred to the atmosphere because this can happen by conduction, so the air temperatures went up. However this does not work in reverse. The oceans below the surface are heated mainly by short-wave radiation from the sun. So you can increase the greenhouse gases as much as you want – it will not cause any significant increase in the heat content of the oceans.
I think a post on how water bodies are heated would also be great.”
I have dealt with that issue extensively here and in other articles on the same site:http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1645

George E. Smith (11:55:50) :“”” Nasif Nahle (10:45:00) :
David L. Hagen (09:50:04):
Popular article at NASA’s Earth Observatory reviewing the issues:
Correcting Global Cooling Nov. 2008
Fortunately, we know that oceans absorb incident solar energy and store it for a long time, otherwise they would be saying the atmosphere is heating up the oceans… Err… Have they already said it? Well, I forgot AGW is an irrefutable idea. “””
Unfortunately; it is a popular misconception that the surface (ocean or land) heats during the day, and cools during the night; as in “solar photons overwhelming spontaneous emissions”.
Exactly… That’s why I’m saying that the photon stream created during nighttime by the heat stored by the ground, ground subsurface materials and oceans overwhelms the spontaneous emission of photons from the atmosphere (from u-state to l-state). Thus, the surface (lands and oceans cools during nighttime).
During daytime, the ground, the ground subsurface materials (including water) and the oceans also generate an upwelling photon stream; however, the spontaneous emission from the surface is driven downwards by the solar photon stream (from u-state to l-state). As the air gets contact with the surface, it heats up, becomes lesser dense and lifts up. Air also spontaneously emits photons at frequencies different from the frequencies of solar irradiance, so those photons are freely directed towards the outer space (iris effect). Thus, the surface is being cooled also during daytime. Surface stores heat during daytime, however.

The Physics Today Opinion Piece from Pielke cites Willis as the source of the data showing a decline in ocean heat content up to the beginning of 2008. Since Willis wrote about the cold bias correction in his 2006 publication, I would assume his graph as cited through Pielke was from the corrected data. Lohele states outright that his analysis is from the cold-bias-corrected data.
I find the seasonal cycle rather interesting. The peaks seem to correspond to the early spring peak of southern hemisphere ice area (March/April) and the trough with the peak in northern hemisphere sea ice area (August/September). I assume the cycle results from the comparative areas of the northern and southern oceans (the southern oceans being much larger, hence causing a peak in global heat content when the southern ocean is at its seasonal warmest). What is interesting is that the amplitude of the cycle seems to have decreased because the peak was lower each year from 2004 to 2007 (the last full peak illustrated by Pielke and Lohele), whereas the troughs stayed about the same until 2007.
I would argue that this suggests that the loss of global heat content is primarily in the Southern Hemisphere from 2003 to 2007. The lack of trend in the troughs on the graph might even suggest that the Northern Hemisphere was gaining enough heat to offset any cooling of the southern seas in the cold season. All this, of course, being very speculative. I wonder if anyone could point me to sea surface temperature anomaly maps for the period 2003 to 2008? Was there a surface cooling in the Southern Hemisphere that might indicate heat loss there?
I wonder what the latest data shows. There should have been another seasonal peak in the last couple of months. Was it higher or lower than the Spring 2008 peak (and was that higher or lower than 2007?)?

Nasif,
Concerning what we do know about the ocean’s ability to store, or at least transport energy, I think it is incorrect to abide by the notion that it can somehow remain “hidden”. There are many very intelligent scientists who can model fluid dynamics, and I don’t think that this feature (hidden heat sources) has ever come up. Lyman and Willis of the JPL, even after thier argo adjustments, didn’t find this in any of thier sounding data. As Roger Pielke stated recently, there is no evidence either in the equations or in the data to suggest that our oceans contain vast pockets of hidden sources of heat energy.
Yes, there are processes undefined and unknown; yes, we cannot accurately predict even variations in well known SSTs cycles. But that doesn’t refute the physics of what we do know.
The alarmists are pulling at straws. GHGs are suppose to lead to warmer oceans, and that hasn’t been the case for well over 5 years.

Correction: “Air also spontaneously emits photons at frequencies different from the frequencies of solar irradiance, so those photons are freely directed towards the outer space (iris effect).”
It should have said:
“Air and surface also spontaneously emit photons at frequencies different from the frequencies of solar irradiance, so those photons are freely directed towards the outer space (iris effect).“

“It is easy to see that this will happen if one writes the equations for energy transport into and out of this surface skin layer from above and below.”
This ocean “skin” is very interesting. This also raises the possibility of another geoengineering scheme to cool the ocean. We can apply SPF 38 suntan lotion to the skin… at least in the tropics!!
Then just lay back and let the cooling begin.
Well it makes as much sense as some of the other schemes I’ve heard.
Mike

““Storage” would be available to fill the “vacuum” when one side of system is perturbed from the equilibrium state. Bad choice of words, but that’s how I understand the argument being made.”
I agree that storage is the wrong word. The ocean currents, like the atmospheric currents are fluids. Nothing gets stored, but the oceans do advect. And in this process energy is getting expended. In basic meterology, students learn that once air masses leave thier source regions they are modified. In the case of our atmosphere the modification is done primairily from “below” -that is the ground. This modification results in either a cooling or warming of the air parcel, depending on where it is headed. The oceans are not different. Near the surface, excess energy is transported into the atmosphere and heads poleward. Below the surace, ocean currents are created by this differential temperature. In all cases, the heat energy is expended. Nothing is really stored.
Why the oceans oscillate between warm and cold cycles is still unknown. But this “warming” is a dynamic process. Storage almost denotes a static process. It does appear that there are periods where the oceans exhaust heat content But even exhaust may be an inaccurate term.

Lucy wrote:YAY!
I think this is a top top top issue, potentially the single clinching disproof of AGW that is needed, that AGW cannot wriggle out of (unlike even Smokey’s best temperature graphs). This has simplicity. Kudos to William for doing the work.
You are simply engaging in meaningless cheerleading.
A few years of plateaued temperatures do not disprove AGW, and the sea level data is not that good to begin with. In addition the idea that the energy stored in the oceans is an index of warming is nothing new and has been described in lay terms very often before.

“”” Nasif Nahle (12:50:34) :
George E. Smith (11:55:50) :
“”” Nasif Nahle (10:45:00) :
David L. Hagen (09:50:04):
Popular article at NASA’s Earth Observatory reviewing the issues:
Correcting Global Cooling Nov. 2008
Unfortunately; it is a popular misconception that the surface (ocean or land) heats during the day, and cools during the night; as in “solar photons overwhelming spontaneous emissions”.
Exactly… That’s why I’m saying that the photon stream created during nighttime by the heat stored by the ground, ground subsurface materials and oceans overwhelms the spontaneous emission of photons from the atmosphere (from u-state to l-state). Thus, the surface (lands and oceans cools during nighttime).
During daytime, the ground, the ground subsurface materials (including water) and the oceans also generate an upwelling photon stream; however, the spontaneous emission from the surface is driven downwards by the solar photon stream (from u-state to l-state). As the air gets contact with the surface, it heats up, becomes lesser dense and lifts up. Air also spontaneously emits photons at frequencies different from the frequencies of solar irradiance, so those photons are freely directed towards the outer space (iris effect). Thus, the surface is being cooled also during daytime. Surface stores heat during daytime, however. “””
Photons are not charged particles and they do not interract with each other; therefore it is not possible for “spontaneous emission” from the surface to be “driven downwards by the solar photon stream.” Also since water is quite opaque to long wave infrared radiation, any such radiation emitted downwards, would immediately be absorbed in the top few microns of the surface. That is why we know that the thermal radiation from the ocean is a result of the surface temperature only and is not affected by anything going on in the cold depths.
The solar insolation, and the surface IR emission are quite independent of each other; which is exactly why a hot surface which is being heated by the sun, can simultaneously emit long wave infrared radiation at a high rate.
George

eric (12:26:35) :
George,
One more point about this which may clarify things for you.
It is easy to see that the downwelling radiation will cause in increase in temperature of the surface skin.
Your claim, correctly, that the evaporation rate and convection away from the surface will go up when additional downwelling radiation hits the surface. In order for that to happen the temperature of the surface must increase.
For pure thermodynamic convection yes, however not necessarily for evaporation. Phase changes (evaporation) occur at constant temperature, so this temperature increase would have to take place below the mass convection boundary layer where the phase change is taking place. Also, most thermodynamic boundary layer effects (which is what this hypothesis seems to be based on) are completely disrupted if a mechanical mixing effect is introduced so any attempt at a control volume boundary analysis would have to include the mechanical mass transfer function as well as the convective one wouldn’t it?

Gerald Machnee (12:40:56) :
oms (11:56:31) :
Gerald:
Radiative forcing is defined in IPCC 2007 (Ch. 2, p. 133):
**The oceans are not just heated by short wave radiation. There is significant transport of heat downward due to fluid motion, where the surface and the abyss are again assumed to be in quasi-equilibrium.**
Thanks for the help and comments.
I still think there is room for discussion here. I am not too familiar with oceanography, but I did contact some who have done work in the field and their view was that only a little of the ocean heating was due to mixing. I was told that shallow bodies of water such as streams and lakes will get a higher percentage of heating from mixing than oceans. I agree that there is downward transport of heat due to fluid motion but this may be water from the top few meters that was heated by short wave radiation.
———————————
I think they meant heat GENERATION due to mixing, rather than heat TRANSPORT due to mixing.

JP: “As Roger Pielke stated recently, there is no evidence either in the equations or in the data to suggest that our oceans contain vast pockets of hidden sources of heat energy.”
Invoking “hidden heat” would, I suppose, be the very essence of a hypothesis that is not falsifiable. It is like that old standby “unknown factors” that is often used to explain away results that do not agree with predictions.
“Well, if you did not find the ‘hidden heat,’ then you did not look in the right place. It right there in plain view, next to the wind currents that blew away the mid tropospheric hot spot!”

This paper makes clear that CO2 effects are not better than second order effects. That is, even if CO2 is heating the atmosphere, there is some bigger effect that is able to trump it, at least for a time.
If you’re a believer in global warming, then the task is to identify what that larger order effect is and determine why it might be transient.

Gino (14:01:16)
Thank you for these words:
” Phase changes (evaporation) occur at constant temperature, so this temperature increase would have to take place below the mass convection boundary layer where the phase change is taking place. Also, most thermodynamic boundary layer effects (which is what this hypothesis seems to be based on) are completely disrupted if a mechanical mixing effect is introduced so any attempt at a control volume boundary analysis would have to include the mechanical mass transfer function as well as the convective one wouldn’t it?”
I’ve been looking for a better way to explain why the ocean skin theory is invalidated by the evaporative process and mixing from movement (amongst other processes) and those words help greatly.
Without the ocean skin theory the proponents of AGW have no mechanism whereby extra downwelling longwave radiation can have any effect on ocean temperatures and if it cannot affect ocean temperatures it cannot warm the air. Instead the air circulation changes to accelerate energy transmission from surface to space.
The air circulation appears to achieve that accelerated energy transfer to space by means of a miniscule latitudinal shift in the weather systems.

“”” eric (12:26:35) :
George,
One more point about this which may clarify things for you.
It is easy to see that the downwelling radiation will cause in increase in temperature of the surface skin.
Your claim, correctly, that the evaporation rate and convection away from the surface will go up when additional downwelling radiation hits the surface. In order for that to happen the temperature of the surface must increase. “””
Well Eric somehow I think everything is perfectly clear to me; so I actually am not in need of having anything clarified (re this subject).
If you have been reading Anthony’s site for very long you may have noticed that I have described this ocean thermal process maybe a dozen times here.
And at no time have I ever indicated that some elctromagnetic radiation being absorbed in the ocean will lead to an increase in temperature but radiation of another wavelength will not lead to an increase in surface temperature. I have many times pointed out that the surface absorption of long wave infra red (EM) radiation causes prompt evaporation from that surface, and it is self evident that that evaporation happens because the energy input (from LWIR) increases the mean Kinetic energy of the surface molecules (which after all is exactly what temperature is), and as a result of the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution of kinetic energies, the number of water molecules having sufficient vibrational velocity to overcome the surface binding forces and escape into the atmosphere increases, so more water escapes.
Do I have to specifically mention that the temperature muct increase any time more energy is absorbed from any source, Or should I presume that the reader can figure that out for himself.
After all, Anthony has only so much space here for posts; and I can’t be writing a Doctor of Science dissertation, to make every simple point obvious to every reader.
I presume that most of the people who come here have enough common sense to understand what are quite simple concepts.
But I’m glad that you understand it anyway; most of the time, I get the idea that exactly nobody ever reads anything I put here; well I put it here in the hope that even one single individual might gain something from it; or have his/er own independent thoughts stimulated as a result.
Besides that, I come here to learn from the other posters.

Lucy Skywalker: Thanks for quoting me in your 10:44:21 comment above, but please note that my complaints about the differences in the OHC data and the usefulness of the data pertained to the long-term comparison included in the most recent Levitus et al paper. I was not referring to the methodologies used by Craig Loehle or Josh Willis in the short-term comparison used by Bill DiPuccio.
And let me clarify my complaint about usefulness.
Given: El Nino events redistribute heat from the tropical Pacific to the high latitudes so that it can be radiated into space more readily. Let’s say I wanted to analyze the 1997/98 El Nino to the determine how much of that heat was released to the atmosphere and how much was simply redistributed to the extratropical North and South Pacific and to other ocean subsets. Refer to the following graph. It’s the comparative graph of Levitus et al, Ishii and Kimoto, and Domingues et al OHC datasets, the graph that’s been cited a few times in this thread. I’ve highlighted 1997 and 1998. In 1997, the OHC in all three datasets increased, and in 1998, they all decreased. BUT look at the differences in the magnitudes of the changes in 1998. Which dataset depicts the changes correctly? Right now, I don’t have enough confidence in any of the OHC reconstructions to do the study I’ve suggested.http://i40.tinypic.com/25rfurs.jpg

Stephen Wilde (14:21:20) :
No problem. I have no trouble with the idea that a body of warm air over a body of cooler water will transfer heat to the water in a stable condition. However add the mechanical convection of say a slight breeze over the cooler moist surface and you could quite possibly end up with a cooler body of water than you started do to increased evaporation from both thermodynamic and mass transfer effects.
A simple example is go to Arizona in Aug, spray water on you body and stand outside….then turn on a fan while standing outside (try the shade first). Your skin will cool (evaporative effects with and with out mechanical transport). Standing in the sun changes the effect dramatically with no resultant change in air temp (addition of solar radiative component).

Manuel (00:44:54) : I am still missing a thorough explanation on how does global mean temperature relates to total heat contents
Poorly, very very poorly…
Aside from all the measuring errors, and all the fabrication steps in the creation of the fictional numbers that are called temperatures, there is the simple physical fact that the specific heat of all the things being heated and the phase change for things like water (and rocks) make temperature without a known mass of substance, it’s known specific heat, and it’s known degree of phase change along with it’s known heats of vaporization and solidification useless as a gauge of heat. Then you get to toss in things like chemical reactions adding / removing heat… How much heat goes into making CaCo2 in the ocean? Or comes out? … And don’t even get me started on U and Th core / crustal heating…
Basically, we can come close to some idea what the heat balance is for the ocean since it’s roughly the same physical stuff for most of the bulk. We can’t have a clue for the planet as a whole. One big lava flow can spoil your whole Deccan Trap energy balance…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps
Even the ocean has its issues… Exactly how much heat is added from all the mid oceanic ridges and exactly how does it change over time?… Heck, we just recently found out there was a ridge and volcanoes going off under the Arctic ice cap.
Then there is the small matter of defining how deeply you want your “total heat” to extend. “On Average” the heat content of the planet is such that it’s a molten ball of iron and rock. Not very useful for weather predictions…
If we’re interested in the surface, define “surface”. 1 mm? 1 km up in the air? 2 m below the surface? They all have very different temperatures and even more different heats.
But the good news is that you could spend your whole life taking in research grants to study parts of this and never have to worry about reaching an answer that would cut off the funding!

This is excellent research.
I could send this to any mechanical engineer and it would immediately be understood as irrefutable proof that the hypothesized radiative forcing is not there. If you add 1 W/m^2 the heat has to go somewhere. This is brilliant accounting and I am thrilled that we finally have the data.
Is there any discussion of how the heat moved during the observation period? I assume that the ocean circulation oscillations would be very apparent and could provide great insight into regional weather patterns.
Kudos

Eric: You wrote, “Also it has been mentioned by Bob Tisdale that the data on ocean heat content may have problems.”
And now for the third time on this thread, my comment about the differences in the OHC data pertained to the long-term comparison included in the most recent Levitus et al paper. I was not referring to the methodologies used by Craig Loehle or Josh Willis in the short-term comparison used by Bill DiPuccio.
Regards

E.M.Smith (14:45:36) :
If we’re interested in the surface, define “surface”. 1 mm? 1 km up in the air? 2 m below the surface? They all have very different temperatures and even more different heats.
———————————
I wonder if there has been any attempt to understand the grand magnitude of temperature variations caused by density changes with depth, or Cp with density and temperature?

The one thing you could say about the oceans which has an almost certain chance of being correct, is that the conditions are chaotic. All sorts of processes are going on as waves break on ocean beaches, or hurricanes build up in the Atlantic. I once spent a month on a boat/ship most of it on the Pacific Ocean. None of those things happened on that voyage; well we did get hit by a tidal wave as a result of an underwsea earthquake; everybody lined the ships rails and the blew the horn to announce that the wave had hit us; otherwise we would never have known. Maybe it was a foot high and 20 miles wavelength and went by at 400 miles per hour; some silly numbers like that; but it did a whole lot of damage when it hit Hawaii.
And I’ve spent wuite a lot of other times sitting out in deep ocean waters; and most of the time nothing in any way turbulent is going on; but I know it is happening somewhere, and when it does, there will be some mixing of colder deeper waters with warmere shallower waters.
But through thick and thin, 24 hours a day, and seven days a week, the continuous process of water warmed by the sun or atmosphere keeps inexorably driving towards the surface.
A model of the thermal processes in the ocean will be more true to the observed reality on a global scale, if you ignore the surface water churned up by the propellors of an oil tanker, or aircraft carrier, but include the vertical convection current that never stops raising warmed deep waters towards the surface, which is even warmer.
The trouble is that the usual practice is to ignore the never stopping process of convection and go into raptures over anecdotal episodes of turbulence and turnovers, or high surface winds; or something else which happens but locally and sporadically.
It is not helpful to start from quantum chromodynamics, and try working backwards to something simpler, that may be a whole lot more instructive.
I find it better to start with the simplest possible edifice first, and only add bells and whistles, as they become necessary to explain the inevitable exceptiuons which crop up.

The trouble is that the usual practice is to ignore the never stopping process of convection and go into raptures over anecdotal episodes of turbulence and turnovers, or high surface winds; or something else which happens but locally and sporadically.

I suppose it depends whose “usual practice” you are referring to. Could you clarify?

Stephen Wilde (12:42:46) :
“Gerald Machnee (10:47:44) :
I have dealt with that issue extensively here and in other articles on the same site:http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1645
Thanks Stephen.
It seems that there is a group that refuses to accept well researched thermodynamics about the ocean.

Lest anybody think that the rules for salt water are simple,
since nobody else has mentioned it, consider the phenomena
of solar ponds.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_pond
Hot and salty on the bottom, cool and brackish on the top.
Somehow the vertical convective current _does_ halt. Halocline
thermocline collision: Halocline wins in this case.
The sun is certainly responsible for sub-surface energy storage
in this case.

George, just so you know, I have read every single post you have written. FWIW, between my father, you and Lief, I can say without doubt that I have learned more from the 3 of you than all my years in school. Thank you and keep ’em coming !! Eyes open and sails unfurled !!

“”” oms (15:26:10) :
George E. Smith (15:11:26) :
The trouble is that the usual practice is to ignore the never stopping process of convection and go into raptures over anecdotal episodes of turbulence and turnovers, or high surface winds; or something else which happens but locally and sporadically.
I suppose it depends whose “usual practice” you are referring to. Could you clarify? “””
The easiest way for me to clarify would be to ask you; for just one peer reviewed paper detailing the upward convection process I mentioned just anecdotally; that would illustrate the point.

“”” An intermediate insulating layer with a salt gradient, which establishes a density gradient that prevents heat exchange by natural convection. “””
From Frank’s Wiki citation above.
A perfect example of Wiki gobbledegook. “prevents heat exchange by natural convection. ”
NO! you WIKI idiots; your own description of the process shows clearly that the process of heat exchange by natural convection IS WORKING !!
But as you also mention the heat exchange natural convection is now DOWNWARD; and it is downward BECAUSE the salinity gradient establishes a density gradient that happens to be opposite to that which solar heating establishes in the depp open ocean.
As Frank mentions, the salinity increases towards the bottom; and at such a clip, that the density increases towards the bottom; despite the fact that the bottom is a lot hotter than the top.
But the convection current still follows the density gradient; except this time it is in the opposite direction, and is STILL in the direction of NATURAL CONVECTION.
In fact Frank’s reference makes my case for me; natural convection is a powerful thermal energy transport process; whether it is going down in a shallow salt pond or going up in a deep ocean.
George

Roger Carr (00:07:31) : Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise.
While plenty of others have given the answer that “There ought to be a test that COULD show it wrong, but the test could itself fail, lending support to the thesis” I’m going in a different tack…
While Popper has his points, and they support the notion that AGW is bunk, he still bothers me.
By Popper’s definition, If I’m fooling about in the lab and find out that U causes photo film to fog, and I start thinking that maybe this means something, and maybe even that it has to do with some “light like” particle (or wave or wavicle…) that I just can’t see… so I decided that doing a bit of discovery on this U stuff and it’s properties might benefit the world. I’m not doing science.
Now I don’t know what to call that, but to me it sure smells like science…
Basically, I think Popper is good when it comes to testing a THESIS and defining what can support it or not and testing if the THESIS is well constructed; but I think that SCIENCE needs a bigger tent than that.
To me, a geologist doing field work looking for new kinds of rock or interesting structures IS doing science. He has no thesis yet, he’s looking for something to stimulate a thesis. But it’s still science. Science begins before the Thesis creation step.
To me, a botanist crossing a couple of interesting nearby species IS doing science. He’s finding out if he can cross a lion and a tiger and THEN he’ll find out what this means in terms of genetics, wild animal populations, the definition of species, etc. Experimentation prior to thesis has merit and is a part of Science, IMHO. (Yes, you can make the strained thesis that “I’ve heard a cross is possible so my thesis is ‘it can be’ and I’m finding out if that thesis is true or false.” but the reality is often quite different. They guy who discovered post-it note semi-glue had an accident, but then he INVESTIGATED and that investigation was, IMHO, science even if his only “thesis” was “maybe I’ll find out how to do this again and what it’s good for”. Science includes serendipity and it’s investigation in an organized way.
And when a mathematician finds the solution to a particularly tough bit of math, I would call that, too “science”. There are folks who argue that math is ‘discovered’ or ‘invented’ and thus not science. That seems, to me, way too limiting. Is the solution to Penrose tiling in 2 and 3D not worthy of being called science just because it’s Math? Is the thesis “Look, I can do this!” insufficient in some way? DIscovery of the roots of all nature are science.
Finally, when an economist says that the velocity of money is important, since the quantity alone does not determine the aggregate price ( QuantityM x VelocityM = aggregate price ) how is this falsified? Is it a thesis or a definition? Is it “non-scientific” yet somehow insightful, yet not an art either… some kind of chimera of sci-art or math-o-vision?
The problems that strict adherence to Popper brings are in many ways more than the issues he solves. And we won’t even get started on what his interpretation of science means for the archeologist trying to scientifically discover our history in controlled digs and artifact interpretation. Nor what Popper implies for things like weather science where there may well be “plug functions” that work well, but are not well formed as a thesis and not falsifiable. (How does a hurricane decide which way to go, and how do you falsify that statement? Yet we have cones of probability that work…)
When The Beagle went to Galapagos, when did the “science” part begin? Can there never be a “scientific expedition” until AFTER the data are analyzed? Or is it after the answers are pretty well known so you can start to form a decent thesis of what’s going on and THEN maybe test it? Does “science” only begin in the very last step before being done? If so, what was all that other part called? Fooling around? “Dear Ford Foundation: I’d like a grant to fool around for 5 years. When I’ve got a pretty good thesis to test, then I’ll be wrapping up a few months later and writing a ‘Science Paper’. Please send check soon.” Hmmm?
So I’ll just leave you with this: Is light a particle, or a wave? How do you falsify “both and neither”? Is the world deterministic, or not? How do you falsify “maybe, it depends on what answer you got”? (There are interesting physics experiments that show that a particle “decided” in the past where to go based on what door you opened in the future…) Is the process of research into these questions not “Science”? If so, please go tell all the physics departments to start issuing B.A. degrees… (And this, BTW, is why PhDs are issued… it’s all, at it’s root “Philosophy”… not “science” in a way…)
So while the Popperian straight jacket is useful at times for tightening up a thesis, I find it way too limiting for deciding what is, and is not, a scientific endeavour. To insist that anything non-Poperian is non-science would toss out a great deal of the history of science. I find that too much to swallow.
That it would toss out a great deal of the future of investigation and discovery makes it too much to even want around the house much 😉

The easiest way for me to clarify would be to ask you; for just one peer reviewed paper detailing the upward convection process I mentioned just anecdotally; that would illustrate the point.

I suppose I am not understanding your point very well. Virtually any oceanography paper which observes the mixed layer describes semidiurnal “pumping” of the thermocline depth, along with deepening of the mixed layer during strong wind mixing and restratification under calm conditions and solar heating; these are all well-observed on both event-by-event bases and seasonal cycles.
-oms

George E. Smith (13:59:28) :“”” Nasif Nahle (12:50:34) :
George E. Smith (11:55:50) :
“”” Nasif Nahle (10:45:00) :
David L. Hagen (09:50:04):
Popular article at NASA’s Earth Observatory reviewing the issues:
Correcting Global Cooling Nov. 2008
Unfortunately; it is a popular misconception that the surface (ocean or land) heats during the day, and cools during the night; as in “solar photons overwhelming spontaneous emissions”.
Exactly… That’s why I’m saying that the photon stream created during nighttime by the heat stored by the ground, ground subsurface materials and oceans overwhelms the spontaneous emission of photons from the atmosphere (from u-state to l-state). Thus, the surface (lands and oceans cools during nighttime).
During daytime, the ground, the ground subsurface materials (including water) and the oceans also generate an upwelling photon stream; however, the spontaneous emission from the surface is driven downwards by the solar photon stream (from u-state to l-state). As the air gets contact with the surface, it heats up, becomes lesser dense and lifts up. Air also spontaneously emits photons at frequencies different from the frequencies of solar irradiance, so those photons are freely directed towards the outer space (iris effect). Thus, the surface is being cooled also during daytime. Surface stores heat during daytime, however. “””
Photons are not charged particles and they do not interract with each other; therefore it is not possible for “spontaneous emission” from the surface to be “driven downwards by the solar photon stream.” Also since water is quite opaque to long wave infrared radiation, any such radiation emitted downwards, would immediately be absorbed in the top few microns of the surface. That is why we know that the thermal radiation from the ocean is a result of the surface temperature only and is not affected by anything going on in the cold depths.
In the first place, tell that photons don’t interact with each other to Albert Einstein. Besides, I didn’t say photons are charged particles. The interaction of solar photon stream and surface photon stream has been verified analytically, so your assertion is a simple negative. You must consider the next formula from experimentation:
Iav = h 1/4π [(Aul / Bul) / (gl *Blu / gu * Bul) e^hν/kT – 1,
That is the best evidence that the interaction exists. The incoming radiative intensity from the Sun during daytime and the outgoing radiative intensity from the surface induce the molecules (not the photons. It is a misconception that you introduced in your post) to emit photons in the same direction of the photon stream:
(dnu / dt)u->l = [-nu (Aul + Bul ∫4π Iv dΩ)]
This induced emission of photons overwhelms the spontaneous emission of the air and the surface during daytime. Photons with frequencies which don’t match with frequencies of the incoming radiation escape to the outer space (iris effect… again).
In the second place, you’re dismissing conduction and convection as you say that the radiation emitted downwards is absorbed in the top few microns of the surface. What happens with the energy that has been absorbed by any material? It seems you think it is “reradiated” immediately without being transferred by other modes of heat transfer.
In the third place, you’re confounding energy with temperature and practically you’re saying the radiated energy (you call it “thermal radiation”) is a product of temperature, when the basic concept is that temperature is a product of energy absorbed. It’s a tiny line, but we must to know how to differentiate each concept.The solar insolation, and the surface IR emission are quite independent of each other; which is exactly why a hot surface which is being heated by the sun, can simultaneously emit long wave infrared radiation at a high rate.
Again, how would you explain spontaneous emission, induced negative absorption and induced absorption? Those are real things observed in nature, how would you explain them in there is not interaction between them?

One or two more bits on halocline/thermocline.
I have a friend with an old, spectacular house in San Raphael California.
Installed there is a salt water swimming pool with a dark bottom. It
heats from the bottom up. The effect is very easy to notice. (This
sort of pool was used in the movie Chinatown.)
Could it be there is a thermocline/halocline effect with glaciation?
Giant ice and snow melt raises the ocean level quickly (in geological
terms) and sharply alters the near-surface halocline. Salt pond
effect raises ocean temps until all is well mixed. Then heat escapes
into space, and the snows begin. I am at the edge of my
understanding here.

Like math theories, the proof is used to show that the equation is true. In it’s simplest form, it examines the calculations and proves them true (or not) by solving each step in another way. If the test proves true, therefore the proof stands as a verification of the calculation. In a way, a proof is a falsifiable test. If an equation has no ability to be examined by a proof, the calculation has no proof that it is true. You do the math on the rest of the statement.
The computer models for AGW are mathematical and therefore offer many avenues for the application of proofs, or falsifiable tests. The above post is simply the application of a segment of the model that says if x is this, y will be that. Therefore we have the opportunity to apply a test. The test shows that y is not what it should be. Therefore that part of the model cannot be said to be anywhere near a theory. In fact, it is now not even a hypothesis.
The modelers must now go back to the drawing board regarding ocean heat or be labeled snake oil salesmen.

WARNING: Troll Food Enclosed! 😉sean (02:55:11) : The last decade of the 20th century averaged 0.268°C above the 61-90 baseline. So far this century is averaging at 0.428°C above the baseline. It a very safe bet that the first decade of the 21st century will end up the warmest since records began.
Unfortunately, the temperatures used to come up with the idea that it’s warming are themselves broken in many many ways. See:http://www.surfacestations.org/http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
So your “rubber ruler” is a bit useless for deciding what’s actually happened and completely pointless for talking about what will happen.When average temperatures go up, that’s called warming.
And what is an average temperature? Especially one calculated to one onehundredth of a degree based on 1F increments? It’s a folly. A mathematical farce.http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/mr-mcguire-would-not-approve/That increase is due to human activity. […[
The isotopic signature of CO2 in the atmosphere also confirms this.
Um, nope:http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/It might be possible that there is some completely unknown and as yet to be discovered mechanism that is responsible for the warming trend.
Actually, it’s well known and very simple. The measuring point starts at the bottom of the Little Ice Age:http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/picking-cherries-in-sweden/
Maybe you can come back after you’ve got a little more substance to work with… For now, I’m tossing the minnow back in the brook…

This is a troubling development. I like to keep things simple. Yet another indicator of cooling. The only questions, as I have stated before, are, for how long will cooling continue, and how low will it go?

Noelene: ‘“If we are ever silly enough to build the CCB White Elephants, they will be as useful to us as the pyramids were to the Pharaohs – we will be creating our own burial
tombs. “If Carbon Capture and Burial is the answer, it must have been a very silly question.” Is this true?’
From my analysis, yes, it is absolutely true. A friend who is (sadly) convinced of the evil of mankind asked me “Name one good thing humanity has ever done for the other animals on this planet.” EVentually and surprisingly, the answer I came up with was “Man has burned huge amounts of fossil fuel.”
Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favour of wasting non-renewable resources, but that is a human-centred reason: future generations might absolutely need it for a reason far more important than merely burning it. But as far as life on Earth goes, yes, recycling that carbon is entirely a good thing. Strange but true!

Pamela Gray (17:21:14) :Like math theories, the proof is used to show that the equation is true. In it’s simplest form, it examines the calculations and proves them true (or not) by solving each step in another way. If the test proves true, therefore the proof stands as a verification of the calculation. In a way, a proof is a falsifiable test. If an equation has no ability to be examined by a proof, the calculation has no proof that it is true. You do the math on the rest of the statement.
The computer models for AGW are mathematical and therefore offer many avenues for the application of proofs, or falsifiable tests. The above post is simply the application of a segment of the model that says if x is this, y will be that. Therefore we have the opportunity to apply a test. The test shows that y is not what it should be. Therefore that part of the model cannot be said to be anywhere near a theory. In fact, it is now not even a hypothesis.
The modelers must now go back to the drawing board regarding ocean heat or be labeled snake oil salesmen.

Jeff Alberts (13:46:47) :
”
all about storing heat (which is NOT a noun) in the ocean.
Sure looks like a noun to me.”
Hi Jeff, no, heat is not a noun. You can’t store nouns in the ocean. (And yes, I am actually criticising the opinion of the previous poster. “Heat”, for sure, is a noun, but any statement about the word “heat” cannot have any reference to whether or not a given physical effect is happening, because word definitions do not determine the nature of reality. I.e., the previous poster was confused as can be.)

JohnD (06:19:47) :
“One popular suggestion is that there is ‘hidden’ or ‘unrealized’ heat in the climate system.”
My calculations (accurate to the 10th finger on my left hand) result in the existence of Dark Heat (a la dark matter), to explain the deficit.
Now, where’s my grant money?! I want it I want it I want it!!!
JohnD – I dispute that assertion of “Dark Heat” – Ha, what a bogus concept.
My own theory of -ve and +ve “Heat Ions” is a far more powerful predictor of the current evidence.
As CO2 increases in the Atmosphere, it preferentially traps +ve heat ions. The natural repulsion of +ve and -ve heat ions to each other causes a boundary condition at the surface of the Oceans where +ve heat ions are sucked into the atmosphere (further warming it), and -ve heat ions are pushed into the Ocean (further cooling it).
This will of course result in Catastrophic Heating of the Atmosphere and Freezing of the Oceans – this destructive double whammy of Catastrophy – all driven by increasing emissions of CO2 by man will freeze all ocean based, and fry all land based organisms.
Note that CO2 emissions are greater in Cities, hence the UHI generated by the conentration of +ve heat ions.
So there – nah nah nah…

eric (13:44:53) :Lucy wrote:
YAY!
I think this is a top top top issue, potentially the single clinching disproof of AGW that is needed, that AGW cannot wriggle out of (unlike even Smokey’s best temperature graphs). This has simplicity. Kudos to William for doing the work.
You are simply engaging in meaningless cheerleading.
I, for one, found it to be very Meaningfull chearleading!
You rock, Lucy!
😉

Ron House (17:57:28) :Jeff Alberts (13:46:47) :
”
all about storing heat (which is NOT a noun) in the ocean.
Sure looks like a noun to me.”
Hi Jeff, no, heat is not a noun. You can’t store nouns in the ocean. (And yes, I am actually criticising the opinion of the previous poster. “Heat”, for sure, is a noun, but any statement about the word “heat” cannot have any reference to whether or not a given physical effect is happening, because word definitions do not determine the nature of reality. I.e., the previous poster was confused as can be.)
Hah! You’re pretty incorrect! Heat is noun in transit; your assertion on heat stored then is invalid. As heat is noun in transit, and nouns can be stored, then heat, given that it is a noun, can be stored in form of motionless stored nouns. When this noun is put again into motion, i.e. it is transferred from one noun to another noun, it becomes heat, again. No noun in transit, no heat, but just nouns. However, is it possible to have a system with zero nouns in transit? 🙂

Stephen Wilde (14:21:20) : I’ve been looking for a better way to explain why the ocean skin theory is invalidated by the evaporative process and mixing from movement
As someone who’s spent a fair amount of time on the sea, bay, ocean:
The notion of an ocean “skin” is ludicrous. It’s clearly based on some kind of theoretical non-reality of a physically stable surface. Since a significant part of the ocean “surface” has hit me in the face traveling sideways with velocity in the wind, I think their basic premise is broken…

George E. Smith (14:22:52) :
I get the idea that exactly nobody ever reads anything I put here; well I put it here in the hope that even one single individual might gain something from it; or have his/er own independent thoughts stimulated as a result.
George! I read every word you write! It’s just that since it’s typically complete, accurate, and well phrased there isn’t much I can do to add to it. So I read it, admire it, and finding nothing I can “enhance”, move on…

Ron House (17:35:50) :
Noelene: ‘“If we are ever silly enough to build the CCB White Elephants, they will be as useful to us as the pyramids were to the Pharaohs – we will be creating our own burial
tombs. “If Carbon Capture and Burial is the answer, it must have been a very silly question.” Is this true?’
From my analysis, yes, it is absolutely true. A friend who is (sadly) convinced of the evil of mankind asked me “Name one good thing humanity has ever done for the other animals on this planet.” EVentually and surprisingly, the answer I came up with was “Man has burned huge amounts of fossil fuel.”
Don’t get me wrong, I am not in favour of wasting non-renewable resources, but that is a human-centred reason: future generations might absolutely need it for a reason far more important than merely burning it. But as far as life on Earth goes, yes, recycling that carbon is entirely a good thing. Strange but true!
Some species have definently benefitted from Humans, i.e. Cats, Dogs, Cattle, Pigs, Chickens, etc…. (Some individuals get eaten, but the species has proliferated).
Evidence for human goodness, there are many acts of kindness, courage and generosity that occur all the time – you just have to open your eyes to see them.

SteveSadlov (17:33:53) :
This is a troubling development. I like to keep things simple. Yet another indicator of cooling. The only questions, as I have stated before, are, for how long will cooling continue, and how low will it go?
I don’t have an answer, but I think I have bounds:
1) Low end (minimal cooling) about 20 years and to about where we were in 1975 or so.
2) High end (maximal cooling) about 100 to 200 years and to about where we were in the depths of the Little Ice Age (frozen N.Y. Harbor and snow in summer in New England…)
Theoretically this could be the start of a tumble into the next ice age, but I don’t think you are talking about 100,000 year duration processes (and it would have lots of wobbles so a warming wobble would happen soon enough anyway…)
Basically, a Bond Event is about as bad as we have to worry about in the next few hundred years and a ‘return to 70s PDO state’ is about the minimum.http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/

“George E. Smith (14:22:52) :
I get the idea that exactly nobody ever reads anything I put here; well I put it here in the hope that even one single individual might gain something from it; or have his/er own independent thoughts stimulated as a result.”
George,
I also read every word you write. Always timely and informative.
Thanks,
Mike Bryant

Dear George E. Smith,
You say: “It is not helpful to start from quantum chromodynamics, and try working backwards to something simpler, that may be a whole lot more instructive.”
I agree with you; however, sometimes, George, only sometimes, quantum physics explains more plainly what classic physics cannot explain. Especially, on issues which are susceptible for being twisted for fitting into an idea.

Most of the earth’s heat budget is stored in the mighty oceans.
On the scale of the AGW fiasco….the truth of this is a no-brainer.
Even without the stupidity of AGW…the truth of this is still a no-brainer.
Most of the earth’s heat budget is stored in the mighty oceans.
From the article: “In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence.
Wow. Some day the scientific method and the pursuit of truth will prevail once again….
But not for now.
FIRE JAMES HANSEN (not sure where that came from LOL).
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Charles Pierce was a philosopher of science in the 1800’s who suggested there are four methods for dispelling doubts: the methods of Tenacity, Authority, Congruence, and Science (look up scientific method at Wikipedia).
Al Gore seems hell bent on using the method of Tenacity to hammer home his beliefs and not letting the facts get in his way, despite more recent data.
More ominously, paid minions of the AGW research community have taken to using the bludgeon of “scientific concensus” to argue their point. However, calls to this so-called concensus seem to be merely attempts to silence debate, criticism, and any questioning of the big money that will flow once carbon taxes start. The real question, though, is: Is there such a thing as a scientific concensus? Does that concept even make sense?
I would argue that such a concept is really irrelevant, and perhaps counterproductive. Most great movements in science have occurred in spite of any prevailing concensus, though later they are often shown to be consistent with current understandings under certain circumstances.
No, if most people agree on a given topic, then there is usually a way to easily show that a given fact is true. For example, one need only see a picture of earth from space to know that it is round. One need only take a trip to the airport to see that man has built heavier than air machines. On the other hand, to say that a given matter of science is “settled” is nothing more than trying to cut off the scientific method itself. For what is science if it does not admit the testing of hypotheses, and the introduction of new data for checking hypotheses and the development of new tests of old hypotheses? And this is exactly what this analysis has done (bravo!) and has basically blown a great big gaping hole in the side of the ship of AGW.

Well expressed Vanguard !
Unfortunately the Scientific method is about as exciting to the media as watching paint dry and it is difficult to get across the message that testable hypotheses may be found wanting and that sometime in the future, sort of verifiable truth will emerge.
It is hard to sell a story like that. There seems to be an urge to ‘do something’ about climate, that the politicians have picked up on and are selling the idea that taxation will ‘correct ‘the climate.
Such hubris!

In reality there is nothing like uncertainity, or hypotheasis every thing is certain , it is our inability to truly understand the laws of nature Precisely . They could not be understood physically in a laboratory by experimentation, but a person will have to become zero (infinitesimal small) to study the behaviour of nature.
There are proven ways and means available to change the earths gravitational force by reducing the rates of energy mass transformation within the system and also beyond our earth system within our solar system and thereby utilizing the excessive energy (additional energy available because of accumalation of energy) in increasing the torque at the centre of earth causing increase in the gravitational acceleration of earth.

E.M.Smith (16:51:26) writes: “Roger Carr (00:07:31) : Karl Popper: Falsifiability. …”
Thank you for taking my question way beyond its basics and expanding it so widely. There is much to think on in this generous use of your time; and I will.

As I understand it, For a theory to be a good theory then it should be able to fail. For example, in climate terms, a global decrease in temperature would prove that the earth is cooling and that the theory on global warming is a sound theory, but one that fails to explain the observable evidence. The problem with climate change theories is that it is impossible, no matter what is observed, for them to be disproven by the observation of what really happens. That does not prove that the climate change theory is a good theory, it proves that it is an utterly rubbish theory as it measures and defines NOTHING. It is designed so that whatever happens, mankind is the blame, no matter what is, or is not, actually driving the changes in climate.
Another example would be a Theory that explains why the earth orbits the sun. So long as the earth keeps orbiting the sun, then the theory remains valid. IF the earth suddenly stopped and left the solar system and started being orbited by another large sun, THEN the theory would no longer be valid, BUT it would still have been a good theory as observable evidence would show that some other factor must have been in place for the earth to orbit the sun, and therefore the theory must have had an ability to fail.
Climate change theory has no such ability to fail, therefore it is a political tool of manipulation rather than a genuine scientific theory.

” I am not in favour of wasting non-renewable resources, but that is a human-centred reason:”
Oil is not a non-renewable resource. If you check the Azolla Event in Wiki you’ll see there is an oilfield cooking under the Arctic that’ll make Saudi look like a puddle.
Or put it another way Nature sequestered carbon for ~ 800,000 years at a rate considerably more than we are desequestering it.

Re Popper and falsifiability: Popper states that a good theory should EXCLUDE certain things from happening, and in this sense be specific in its predictions. Newton’s theory of gravity not only enabled planetary orbits to be calculated, it stated that things don’t fall up. Thermodynamics explains why we can’t build a perpetual motion machine. In climate science, every time it is pointed out that the models are wrong, as in the essay on this thread, it is claimed that it all averages out over 100 years, or the average of all the models is correct even though they make forecasts all over the map. That is not very specific. A vague theory used to be called a hunch and was maybe ok for piddling around with early biplanes or dinking around in the lap making post-it notes, but is certainly not good enough for shutting down all coal fired power plants, IMHO.

Craig Loehle (05:10:28) :
“In climate science, every time it is pointed out that the models are wrong, as in the essay on this thread, it is claimed that it all averages out over 100 years, or the average of all the models is correct even though they make forecasts all over the map. That is not very specific. ”
The way I look at the models is yet a new derivation of the phrase ‘two wrongs make don’t make a right’. Although with models it’s more like 15 wrongs don’t make a right.

Re: Craig Loehle’s Comments on Models
Pielke has pointed out (he has written on and taught modeling) that the proper use GCM’s in the climate community is to conduct sensitivity studies, not to make projections. There is some confusion in the minds of many who rely on these models. The model is not a virtual dynamic climate system, it is a hypothesis. Thus you cannot prove anything by it in the strict sense of the word.
Moreover, since the IPCC is running about 20 models, to say that one or two models forecasted this pause in ocean warming (Willis) does not mean that those same models will show skill in projecting AGW in the future. As any forecaster knows, a model that tracks well for this system may completely unravel when a new system develops. Picking the right model for projections 20 years into the future becomes a shell game.
So again I would ask the modelers, How long will this pause last? What is the physical cause of it? How (by what mechanism) will the climate system “make up the lost heat”? If they can’t answer these questions, then one could hardly claim that the physical equations for these dynamic models is robust.
See: http://climatesci.org/2008/11/13/what-are-climate-models-what-do-they-do-2/
ANDhttp://climatesci.org/2008/11/14/are-multi-decadal-climate-forecasts-skillful-2/

Ken Hall (04:13:14) :[…]The problem with climate change theories is that it is impossible, no matter what is observed, for them to be disproven by the observation of what really happens.[…]
[…]Climate change theory has no such ability to fail, therefore it is a political tool of manipulation rather than a genuine scientific theory.
Excellent explanation! A hypothesis with the characteristics you described is known as “irrefutable hypothesis” and it is pseudoscience. I classify CC and AGW as ideas, not hypotheses or theories.

Mr. Dipuccio,
The Levitus-curve that you didn’t include in your analysis includes data from 2008-2009, when it increased to a record high: http://s5.tinypic.com/2n67zgm.jpg
Is the willis-curve (the green curve) in your diagram updated with data from 2008-2009 or is it extrapolated from an earlier trend?

** JohnF (06:31:51) :
An apparent contradiction to this report.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/**
First, RC cites a paper by Domingues et al printed in Nature in 2008. It only covers until 2003. But RC and Gavin liked it because it covered a longer period. That paper does not use too much actual data, but is a statistical analysis using a lot of filling. Yes they make sure to note that there was an error in the ARGO data. They were criticized for not being up to date. But that may have altered their results. The rest of the post deteriorates into discussion with the usual apologists attacking those who dare to question why data was adjusted to better conform to models. A waste of time going there.

I am still trying to figure out when to plant my tomato garden. Since CO2 levels are going up, the prime driver of AGW, I should be able to plant May 15th and avoid a killing frost. My mother says to wait until after Memorial Day. In her experience, although May 15th may be OK on most occasions, there are enough rare Memorial Day killing frosts that if I really really want tomatoes in August, I had better wait. Hmm. Rare events, say occurring 5.1% of the time, validate the null hypothesis. Any model, whether planting tomatoes or predicting future climate change, has to give sufficient weight to uncommon events. Current climate change models assumes may things, the sun remains cool, past performance predicts future events, etc. etc. Current climate change models do not give sufficient weight to uncommon events; hence, current measurements of ocean heat content, or surface temperatures, or whatever, are not predicted accurately. And, just like no one predicted the current financial meltdown, a rare event, a lot of people’s 401k are in the tank. Built into any model, near term measurement outcomes must be accounted for. Otherwise, as has been suggested, anthropogenic CO2 effects may be lost in the noise of what ever else the earth has been doing to modulate temperatures. Proposals such as CO2 Cap & Trade, which have a significant economic impact, should not be adopted if AGW is based on noise: human, science, and otherwise. I think I will take my mother’s advice, plant tomatoes after Memorial Day.

“”” Nasif Nahle (20:06:05) :
Dear George E. Smith,
You say: “It is not helpful to start from quantum chromodynamics, and try working backwards to something simpler, that may be a whole lot more instructive.”
I agree with you; however, sometimes, George, only sometimes, quantum physics explains more plainly what classic physics cannot explain. Especially, on issues which are susceptible for being twisted for fitting into an idea. “””
Well isn’t it better to work with the simple first until it fails to satisfy ?
We moved on from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein’s General theory of relativity; because of a lousy 43 seconds of arc per century discrepancy in the rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury. But surely Newton is satisfactory for most of our simple needs.
One area of physics I deal with every day; I believe has no known classical Physics explanation; it has ONLY a quantum theory, and that is the Photo-Electric Effect; which of course is what Einstein rather belatedly got his Nobel Prize for.
George

“”” E.M.Smith (18:59:18) :
George E. Smith (15:11:26) : exceptiuons which crop up.
I think you meant “exceptions”. (Feel better now?)
😎 “””
NO! I always mean what I say . An “Exceptiuon” is one of the fundamental particles; it has been loosely defined as the quantized form of “snafu”. It has a “spin” of 1/2 and obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics; So there !
George

“”” oms (17:01:29) :
George E. Smith (15:11:26) :
The easiest way for me to clarify would be to ask you; for just one peer reviewed paper detailing the upward convection process I mentioned just anecdotally; that would illustrate the point.
I suppose I am not understanding your point very well. Virtually any oceanography paper which observes the mixed layer describes semidiurnal “pumping” of the thermocline depth, along with deepening of the mixed layer during strong wind mixing and restratification under calm conditions and solar heating; these are all well-observed on both event-by-event bases and seasonal cycles. “””
Well I’m not disputing any of the things you mention here. My whole point is that whatever complex interractions are taking place whether due to winds or storms, diurnal changes or what have you, which can certainly stir up parts of the oceans; the basically simple process of convection due to expansion caused by heating by solar radiation never stops; hot water rises (unless some other physical or chemical change such as salinity creates an even greater density gradient in a different direction); so yes, thermoclines may move up and down; but in the long run the warmer water carrying the solar energy returns to the surface, so the energy doesn’t just continue to get conducted down to the deepest ocean depths; which is what “storage” implies. Besides I think there is a Second Law problem there.

the basically simple process of convection due to expansion caused by heating by solar radiation never stops; hot water rises (unless some other physical or chemical change such as salinity creates an even greater density gradient in a different direction);

Ocean convection is a mirror image of the atmosphere. Solar heating heats the ocean surface most and progressively less with increasing depth; hence solar heating tends to increase, not decrease, convective stability in the tropical ocean. Meanwhile, cooling and evaporation at high latitudes (in the relative absence of solar heating) produces cold, salty water which does sink. Thus the convection has to be viewed in the context of a large scale meridional circulation, not in a local 1-d balance.

so yes, thermoclines may move up and down; but in the long run the warmer water carrying the solar energy returns to the surface, so the energy doesn’t just continue to get conducted down to the deepest ocean depths; which is what “storage” implies. Besides I think there is a Second Law problem there.

You have to think in the context of a 1-d climate model. You have an atmosphere in 1-d equilibrium, now you want to add an ocean which is also in 1-d equilibrium, you model that with a 1-d advective-diffusive balance…you perturb the TOA radiative input and watch the energy percolate downward; the surface temperature no longer responds the way it did sans ocean because there is a “cold reservoir” underneath your interface. Aha, the heat is going into ocean “storage”!
I’m not the one selling the “storage” idea by the way.
-oms
P.S.: What is the Second Law problem you see?

Tata (08:30:41) : “The Levitus-curve that you didn’t include in your analysis includes data from 2008-2009, when it increased to a record high: http://s5.tinypic.com/2n67zgm.jpg. Is the willis-curve (the green curve) in your diagram updated with data from 2008-2009 or is it extrapolated from an earlier trend?”
Pielke received permission from Willis to extrapolate it to the end of 2008. As I posted above regarding this new data:
Craig Loehle (who is on this forum) would be more qualified to comment on the Levitus article since he did the actual analysis. In brief I would say, first, that if the data I used is wrong and the oceans are still warming slightly, this fact would tend to confirm the hypothesis but not prove it. An attribution test must be performed which would attempt to falsify the idea that the warming is anthropogenic. After all, it could just be a natural cycle. Warming in and of itself is not proof of AGW. Second, I would say that I could have saved myself a lot of work!

Bravo. Well written. Finally, an application of pure logic. Sometimes I think I must be crazy because it has always seemed strange to me that the oceans have been slow to warm (and now I see that they are actually cooling) even though I expected that they should be a major heat sink. In addition, given their high heat capacity, trapped heat should be slow to escape. There should be no “roller coaster” ride of temperature in the ocean. Thus, the slow drift downward of temps can only be explained by a drainage of heat content…which is completely the reverse of what man-induced global warming theory would suggest.
Why isn’t the word getting out to the world about this though? Why does the media still continue to push the falsities about rising temperatures of the oceans and atmosphere when it is NOT being observed?

<>
So why isn’t the Willis-curve (the green curve) stipled from 2008 to 2009 like you have done with the Loehle-curve? And why did you choose to make a 2003-2009 representation when none of your data stretch longer than 2008? Didn’t you know that the the Levitus-graph (published 11.april 2009 AGU) with data up until 2009 existed when you wrote your analysis and your bombastic conclusion?

“”” oms (11:59:38) :
George E. Smith (11:00:16) :
the basically simple process of convection due to expansion caused by heating by solar radiation never stops; hot water rises (unless some other physical or chemical change such as salinity creates an even greater density gradient in a different direction);
Ocean convection is a mirror image of the atmosphere. Solar heating heats the ocean surface most and progressively less with increasing depth; hence solar heating tends to increase, not decrease, convective stability in the tropical ocean. Meanwhile, cooling and evaporation at high latitudes (in the relative absence of solar heating) produces cold, salty water which does sink. Thus the convection has to be viewed in the context of a large scale meridional circulation, not in a local 1-d balance.
Well I don’t disagree about the large scale circulations or that the surface likely heats up most; but it is not a simple problem, because the wavelengths near the peak of the solar spectrum (AM-1) also propagate deepest, and aren’t too strongly absorbed in surface waters. My data has 0.0007 cm^-1 for oceanic water absorption at 500 nm, and about 4 times that at 600 nm. The deeper water may be colder than the surface water, but it still gets less dense relative to its neighboring waters as it absorbs solar energy, so it still wants to rise, and as it does it will gain even more energy as it gets shallower. Somehow I don’t think water that is 100 metres deep is going to travel 1/4 the way round the world before finally giving up its extra thermal energy and then sinking; the oceans are just not that locally stable.
All of the places I have been where there has been a lot of evaporative cooling of the surface waters have always been tropical. Tropical places do seem to have lots of humidity, and are the source of lots of precipitation. That does suggest that surface cooling and evaporation in the tropics is not entirely unknown.
But yes I do admit that the process I mentioned is only a part of the oceanic thermal processes; but it is one that operates all the time; no matter what else is going on.

Tata (14:47:21) : “So why isn’t the Willis-curve (the green curve) stipled from 2008 to 2009 like you have done with the Loehle-curve? And why did you choose to make a 2003-2009 representation when none of your data stretch longer than 2008? Didn’t you know that the the Levitus-graph (published 11.april 2009 AGU) with data up until 2009 existed when you wrote your analysis and your bombastic conclusion?”
Willis provides the quality controlled ARGO data set. So he would not have granted permission to Pielke without basing it on actual observations. I was writing my paper when Levitus 2009 was published, so I was unaware of it. On average Levitus shows a slight increase over the same period (not as much as I first thought). Willis shows a slight decrease. Loehle shows a larger decrease. Which one is correct? (Levitus shows a recent spike, but there are spikes all along the way; you have to look at the smoothed average.)
Pielke’s calculations are based on a flat curve which is a fairly safe assumption if you average the results together. So for now I stick to “my bombastic conclusion.”

Two small errors I noted.
“A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. ”
Wrong. That should be
“A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations is not science. ”
It is wrong to put a comma after a subject clause.
“So, the calculated heat must be multiplied …”
This should be
“So the calculated heat must be multiplied…”
It is wrong to put a comma after a conjunction, even when the conjunction starts the sentence.
And it does matter. Bad punctuation causes Global WarmingReply: You may; be right ~ charles the moderator

George E. Smith (10:26:44) :Nasif Nahle (20:06:05) :
Well isn’t it better to work with the simple first until it fails to satisfy ?
Yes, you are right; however, now it’s the time to work with the complex given that the simple has failed on explaining what scientists are observing in nature:
1. No signals of downwelling radiation, except during daytime when the incoming solar radiation prevails and we measure the incident solar photon stream.
2. Measurement of heat stored in ground unexposed materials, including water, and in oceans which has to take a trajectory which follows the Newton’s law of cooling.
3. The permanence of loads of heat in the lower atmosphere during nighttime which, if assessed only from the classic viewpoint, it appears is coming from nowhere.
4. The amount of heat stored by materials by far denser, more massive and thermally more efficient than the air.
As I had pointed out in my post Nasif Nahle (17:05:45):| 7/05/09 |, the radiative intensity of the atmosphere can be easily calculated considering the three main processes which determine the release or capture of photons by particles, atoms, molecules or macrosystems.
Those processes cannot be eliminated from our calculations on radiative heat transfer because they have been observed in nature and were determined by experimentation.
I’m talking about spontaneous emission, induced negative absorption and induced absorption.
Any hypothesis must coincide with observed phenomena and with other verified theories. If something is wrong with the supposed downwelling radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and it is not happening in the real world although it has been proposed, at least theoretically, the absence of it, even when it had been predicted by a model, must have a natural feasible explanation.
The only explanation about our impossibility of measuring the proposed “downwelling” radiation is through the processes which have been tested and verified by experimentation.
The processes which lead to the capture or release of photons by matter are well explained through spontaneous emission, induced negative absorption and induced absorption. However, the three analytically observed phenomena cannot be explained through classic physics; hence we make use of quantum mechanics.
I know, Dr. Smith, that you don’t agree with theories on photon-photon interactions because you have clearly expressed it in one of your posts. However, there are experiments in colliders which have demonstrated a sort of photon-photon interactions.
However, talking about those experiments would consitute an out of topic matter.

I forgot to mention that I have spent some nights on trying to measure the nighttime “downwelling” radiation from the atmosphere to the surface (on the boundary layer) throughout more than one year and have found nothing. Definitely, the lower layer of the troposphere is being heated up by adiabatic process and by conduction-convection heat transfer from the surface to the air.
The latter is explainable if we consider that the sensible heat flux from the surface (land and oceans) to the atmospher is always positive, except at the poles.

An interesting read is found at:http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html#Deep-Blue
Dr. Robert E. Stevenson was an oceanographer who passed away in 2001. He commented that we did our models backwards – we started with atmospheric models. He noted that oceans contain most of the energy and modify the climate and decide how much the atmosphere changes in temperature. He said the oceans should have been modelled first.

Gerald Machnee (18:22:35) :An interesting read is found at:http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/ocean.html#Deep-Blue
Dr. Robert E. Stevenson was an oceanographer who passed away in 2001. He commented that we did our models backwards – we started with atmospheric models. He noted that oceans contain most of the energy and modify the climate and decide how much the atmosphere changes in temperature. He said the oceans should have been modelled first.
Thans for the link to Stevenson’s excelent article!

I propose a little experiment. Take a vessel with a heater in the center. Something like a Calorimeter. Fill the vessel with water and apply a constant heat . Then in the surrounding space, fill with various mixtures of differing concentrations of atmospheric gases ( i.e. N2, O2, H2O, CH4). Make sure that the pressure stays constant and within the normal for the atmosphere. How does the temperature of the water vary with the differing concentration of gases once the system reaches equilibrium? According to AGW the temperature of the water will increase as the concentration of CO2 increases. We can measure temperature in this type of system to within 0.01 K. Is this not the bases of AGW, that the CO2 is acting like an insulator and slowing the heat transfer of the solar induced heat back to space. I can perform this experiment, but my opinion is worthless because I only have a BS in Chemistry and do not have access to the “Peer Review” journals. If someone knows of this experiment having been preformed Please let me know.

Allan (22:23:02) :I propose a little experiment. Take a vessel with a heater in the center. Something like a Calorimeter…
Please, Allan… I cannot talk for others, but as far as I am concerned, I don’t care if you are a BS or a PHD, or whether you have access to PR or not. If your assertions are correct and they coincide with scientific theories, you’ll be welcomed here. I think people in WUWT are not dogmatic.
BTW, similar experimentation, but not exactly the same, was performed by Hottel in 1950-1954. He found that the CO2 at atmospheric conditions of CO2 Pp = 0.0003 atm m and T = 300 K has a very low emissivity-absorptivity (0.001).
Nevertheless, AGW proponents have elevated the CO2 up to the category of a blackbody, despite the experimental-observational information.

let me edify everyone on ‘hypothesis and falsehood’:
carbon is not the problem
global warming is not the problem
greenhouse gas is not the problem
THESE ARE RED HERRINGS:
the problem IS the ratio between CO2 & O2 is shifting toward CO2, whereas animal life requires higher O2 levels to prosper. we need more oxygen.
they cut down the rain forests, which they were quite aware produced much of the oxygen, and now they are killing the ocean, which produces the majority of oxygen.
the REAL PROBLEM IS most of earth’s oxygen is produced by plankton in the ocean, and we have poisoned the ocean and these organisms are not producing as much oxygen as they previously did.
when they go- we go. that’s the problem.
WITHOUT THE RAIN FORESTS AND THE OCEAN WE HAVE NO OXYGEN REPLENISHING MECHANISM. that is the problem. BIG CORPORATE CAPITALISM KILLED THE RAIN FORESTS AND POLLUTED THE OCEAN, AND NOW THEY WANT US TO PAY TO CLEAN UP THEIR MESS. I SAY CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE POLLUTERS.

>> George E. Smith (11:40:18) :
. . . for some reason that 324 W/m^2 of back radiation is much more than the 168 W/m^2 from the sun. (I’m not kidding; these are NOAA’s numbers) <<
Actually, George, those numbers come from a paper by Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 (see figure seven). The numbers have changed slightly because of a new paper (see figure one). The first paper has several errors and the second paper doesn’t correct them. If I had the time and the inclination I would discuss them with you.
Jim

Toms grow best when nighttime temps stay above 50 on a consistent, super majority basis. That sets the toms early and gets the fruit on the vine so that it can ripen in the August Sun as well as be big enough to cover a meat patty. A killing frost is the least of your worries if you want red toms for your fall BBQ instead of green tom salsa for your chips. However, I happen to prefer fried green toms and a hot green tom salsa instead of red toms on my BBQ hamburger.

Ya know, I’m not the smartest guy in the world, but it certainly seems to me that if the models being used as the basis for all the AGW hysteria can’t predict the past, and haven’t been able to predict the last 10-12 years of global temperatures with any degree of accuracy whatsoever, then maybe the models just aren’t any good at all. And have there been any updates to the models, after the last 10 years of data have been factored in ?

if the models being used as the basis for all the AGW hysteria can’t predict the past, and haven’t been able to predict the last 10-12 years of global temperatures with any degree of accuracy whatsoever, then maybe the models just aren’t any good at all.
Rick, you are being silly. Don’t you realize that polar bears are drowning?

Jim Masterson (11:52:49) :George E. Smith (11:40:18) :
. . . for some reason that 324 W/m^2 of back radiation is much more than the 168 W/m^2 from the sun. (I’m not kidding; these are NOAA’s numbers)
Actually, George, those numbers come from a paper by Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 (see figure seven). The numbers have changed slightly because of a new paper (see figure one). The first paper has several errors and the second paper doesn’t correct them. If I had the time and the inclination I would discuss them with you.
Jim
Those numbers are unreal. Fig. 1 shows 333 W/m^2 absorbed by “greenhouse” gases, radiated “back” to the surface and 333 W/m^2 absorbed by the surface. In terms of thermodynamics and observation that kind of process is unreal.
If absorptivity of land and oceans is 0.84 and the solar incident radiation upon the surface is 184 w/m^2, land and oceans absorbs 155 W/m^2. However, Trenberth et al consign 396 W/m^2 to the energy radiated by the surface. The most efficient absorber-emitter of photons is water vapor, and its absorptivity is 0.75, depending on its Pp and mass; consequently, if the surface absorbs 161 W/m^2, water vapor would absorb 120.5 W/m^2. On the other hand, carbon dioxide has an absorptivity of 0.001 at its current Pp and mass; thus, carbon dioxide would absorb only ~0.161 W/m^2. Adding this amount to the amount absorbed by water vapor gives a load of energy equal to ~120.6 W/m^2. Nonetheless, Trenberth et al say that the surface (land and oceans emits 396 W/m^2 from which the “greenhouse” gases absorb 333 W/m^2. The question is: From where the excess of energy (212.4 W/m^2) is coming out? Creation of energy from nothing?
Take into account that Trenberth et al say that the 239 W/m^2 absorbed by the surface and the atmosphere are the same which are emitted towards the outer space. It cannot be possible, unless Trenberth and associated consider the atmosphere and the surface like black bodies which would be isolated systems, which is unreal.
Then again, let’s take the figure 341 W/m^2 as the solar radiation incoming to the earth hitting upon the outmost layer of the Earth’s atmosphere, which was consigned by Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehle in their paper. If the figure is real, the incident solar radiation upon the surface would be 170.5 W/m^2. The surface would lose 10.23 W/m^2 and would store 51.15 W/m^2, which is the amount of solar radiation that heats up the surface by conduction-convection and drives TOC.
From the solar radiation incoming from the Sun, the atmosphere gases, except the CO2 because it is almost transparent to shortwave IR, would absorb 34.1 W/m^2, which would be transformed into potential energy. About 51.15 W/m^2 are transferred to the atmosphere by sensible heat flux from the surface and latent heat of evaporation from the oceans. From 34.1 W/m^2 of heat converted to potential energy, only 0.31 W/m^2 would be transformed into kinetic energy, which would be dissipated by friction into oceanic currents. There is a difference of -61.07 W/m^2 or 38%, to which ~14 W/m^2 correspond to solar radiation reflected by clouds, dust and Earth’s surface (albedo), 2.8242 W/m^2 correspond to heat radiated by the surface towards outer space, and 42.749 W/m^2 correspond to spontaneous emission, induced emission and induced absorption. Approximately 1.5 W/m^2 of kinetic energy is converted into potential energy in oceans. When water vapor condensates, 14.7 W/m^2 of energy are released towards deep space. During nighttime, subsurface ground materials and water will release their respective loads of heat towards the atmosphere. Remember this fact: Convection doesn’t stop during nighttime (convection doesn’t sleep). It’s an AGW fallacy on-line. What happens during nighttime is that natural convection flow regimen (driven by surface and subsurface stored heat) prevails over forced convection (driven by the solar photon stream) flow regimen.

>> Nasif Nahle (15:53:48) :
Those numbers are unreal. <> In terms of thermodynamics and observation that kind of process is unreal. <> The most efficient absorber-emitter of photons is water vapor . . . . <> The question is: From where the excess of energy (212.4 W/m^2) is coming out? Creation of energy from nothing? <> It cannot be possible, unless Trenberth and associated consider the atmosphere and the surface like black bodies which would be isolated systems, which is unreal. <> If the figure is real, the incident solar radiation upon the surface would be 170.5 W/m^2. The surface would lose 10.23 W/m^2 and would store 51.15 W/m^2, which is the amount of solar radiation that heats up the surface by conduction-convection and drives TOC. <<
I don’t follow your numbers, and I have no clue about TOC. (Table of Contents?)
I’ve modeled KT97, and the model fails. KT97 is the quintessential GHG model. More complicated models would have to essentially duplicate KT97, and I don’t see how that is possible. The numbers may not add up, but the model doesn’t compute either.
Jim

That post didn’t work very well. Maybe this one will be better.
>> Nasif Nahle (15:53:48) :
Those numbers are unreal. <<
I have my own problems with those numbers, so you’re not telling me anything new.
>> In terms of thermodynamics and observation that kind of process is unreal. <<
The Second Law requirement of heat flowing from a hotter to a cooler body does not apply to black bodies, and Trenberth/Kiehl’s diagrams assume we are taking about black bodies or near black bodies (gray bodies).
>> The most efficient absorber-emitter of photons is water vapor . . . . <<
I think black bodies are the most efficient absorbers-emitters of photons.
>> The question is: From where the excess of energy (212.4 W/m^2) is coming out? Creation of energy from nothing? <<
No. The energy flows balance. There’s no creation of energy.
>> It cannot be possible, unless Trenberth and associated consider the atmosphere and the surface like black bodies which would be isolated systems, which is unreal. <<
I believe they ARE considered to be gray bodies with high emissivities (close to one).
>> If the figure is real, the incident solar radiation upon the surface would be 170.5 W/m^2. The surface would lose 10.23 W/m^2 and would store 51.15 W/m^2, which is the amount of solar radiation that heats up the surface by conduction-convection and drives TOC. <<
I don’t follow your numbers, and I have no clue about TOC. (Table of Contents?)
I’ve modeled KT97, and the model fails. KT97 is the quintessential GHG model. More complicated models would have to essentially duplicate KT97, and I don’t see how that is possible. The numbers may not add up, but the model doesn’t compute either.
Jim

There have been some useful links given above. It seems to me that the OHC calculations of Levitus et al. seem to confirm the IPCC models or even exceed the predictions, thereby giving major support to the warmists. In the discussion above I cannot see any serious criticism of these results.
There is discrepancy of about 8 J *10/22(+7 to minus 1) between the Levitus approach and that of Willis and Loele. Am I missing something? The volume of ocean is pretty much defined i.e the area of the ocean is a known to within some reasonable degree of accuracy and the depth assumed in the calculations is set at 700m and surely the temperature variation cannot account for this degree of difference.. So what has generated this degree of disparity?

Spen,
The Levitus-curve is the only curve that includes data as new as 2008-2009, and it increased to a record high in 2008. The Willis-curve and Loehle-curve that Dipuccio has used in his analysis are based on older data.

Nasif Nahle (17:38:28) :
In your reply to George E. Smith (10:26:44)I know, Dr. Smith, that you don’t agree with theories on photon-photon interactions because you have clearly expressed it in one of your posts. However, there are experiments in colliders which have demonstrated a sort of photon-photon interactions.
However, talking about those experiments would constitute an out of topic matter.
This is up my alley. Photon photon interactions are described by higher order Feynman diagrams which means that they are a fine structure constant factor ( 1/137) down in probability, which leads to very small crossections (squared probability usually) in real life.
Tom Vogt had given a very good description of the molecular absorption and decays in a thread in CA a few months a go, between vibrational levels and rotational levels etc. If you see him around, catch him, because I cannot find the thread, CA does not do names.
I cannot follow your numbers, but am sure of one thing. The science is not settled.

Jim Masterson (01:05:47) :I have my own problems with those numbers, so you’re not telling me anything new.
Yes, because they are unreal numbers.The Second Law requirement of heat flowing from a hotter to a cooler body does not apply to black bodies, and Trenberth/Kiehl’s diagrams assume we are taking about black bodies or near black bodies (gray bodies).
And the surface and the atmosphere are not blackbodies. In Trenberth et al diagram, the energy radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (333 W/m^2) are absorbed entirely by the surface, which is unreal. On the other hand, if 249 W/m^2 are the radiative energy incoming from the Sun, and the outgoing energy is 249 W/m^2, from where the difference of energy comes out? It seems that Trenberth et al took the atmosphere like an accumulator of energy, which is unreal. No material is capable of emit more energy than the load of energy it has absorbed. Besides, there is no reference to potential energy. I understand they have not considered the potential energy which is converted to kinetic energy because it is a negligible quantity (0.002 W/m^2) which could affect the oceans. In reality, the oceans dissipate that tiny amount in their dynamics.No. The energy flows balance. There’s no creation of energy.
The question again surges, from where the excess of energy comes out? It doesn’t work this way in nature. (Margules. 1903)I believe they ARE considered to be gray bodies with high emissivities (close to one).
Me too; and that is there where unreality arises because air is a gray body with very low absorptivities-emissivities, except water vapor which has an absorptivity-emissivity of 0.75. Carbon dioxide has an absorptivity-emissivity of 0.001. (Modest. 1998).I don’t follow your numbers, and I have no clue about TOC. (Table of Contents?)
Well… TOC is for Thermohaline Oceanic Current. Actually, “my” numbers are not mine. Those numbers were calculated considering real data for HULUC. Formulas can be found in any book on Mechanics of Earth Systems.

Trenberth’s calculations appear to be based on a GHG budget, suggesting that the GHG’s absorb and radiate IR. I Googled to see if I can find a better result on the net. I found a few others which also seem to be GHG based or hard to interpret. Has anyone found one that is possible to understand and may be close to reality? Or do we have to go back 30 years?

>> Nasif Nahle (07:43:25) :
Yes, because they are unreal numbers. <<
Maybe they’re incorrect. Unreal would be pushing the envelope.
>> In Trenberth et al diagram, the energy radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (333 W/m^2) are absorbed entirely by the surface, which is unreal. <<
For IR frequencies, the Earth is essentially a black body.
>> On the other hand, if 249 W/m^2 are the radiative energy incoming from the Sun, and the outgoing energy is 249 W/m^2, from where the difference of energy comes out? <<
It doesn’t. It’s stuck in a feedback loop between the surface and the atmosphere.
>> It seems that Trenberth et al took the atmosphere like an accumulator of energy, which is unreal. No material is capable of emit more energy than the load of energy it has absorbed. <<
And it doesn’t. The numbers all balance. Try the Stefan-Boltzmann law using the Earth’s surface temperature and an emissivity of 1.0. You’re going to need to deal with those numbers.
>> Besides, there is no reference to potential energy. I understand they have not considered the potential energy which is converted to kinetic energy because it is a negligible quantity (0.002 W/m^2) which could affect the oceans. In reality, the oceans dissipate that tiny amount in their dynamics. <<
It’s not required.
>> The question again surges, from where the excess of energy comes out? It doesn’t work this way in nature. (Margules. 1903) <<
Ditto.
>> Me too; and that is there where unreality arises because air is a gray body with very low absorptivities-emissivities, except water vapor which has an absorptivity-emissivity of 0.75. Carbon dioxide has an absorptivity-emissivity of 0.001. (Modest. 1998). <<
These are all good arguments.
>> Well… TOC is for Thermohaline Oceanic Current. Actually, “my” numbers are not mine. Those numbers were calculated considering real data for HULUC. Formulas can be found in any book on Mechanics of Earth Systems. <<
THC is the acronym I’ve seen. I’ll just remember you’re using TOC.
Jim

Gerald Machnee (08:31:50) :Trenberth’s calculations appear to be based on a GHG budget, suggesting that the GHG’s absorb and radiate IR. I Googled to see if I can find a better result on the net. I found a few others which also seem to be GHG based or hard to interpret. Has anyone found one that is possible to understand and may be close to reality? Or do we have to go back 30 years?
That is the reason by which I chose books on mechanics of Earth’s systems (Butz’s book, for example). It was a kind of rediscovering the real thread of climate because new data are filled with speculations and -very evident- unreal processes.
Another way I have resorted to is to make my own direct observations. I know it’s not easy to do it because one has to get premium equipment for getting the possible more accurate measurements and it’s very expensive, but lastly the remuneration is gratifying. Here the true problem is that Trenberth et al aren’t being objective. It’s why they’re pulling out fictitious amounts of energy from underneath the sleeve.

anna v (04:00:02) :Nasif Nahle (17:38:28) :
In your reply to George E. Smith (10:26:44)
I know, Dr. Smith, that you don’t agree with theories on photon-photon interactions because you have clearly expressed it in one of your posts. However, there are experiments in colliders which have demonstrated a sort of photon-photon interactions.
However, talking about those experiments would constitute an out of topic matter.
This is up my alley. Photon photon interactions are described by higher order Feynman diagrams which means that they are a fine structure constant factor ( 1/137) down in probability, which leads to very small crossections (squared probability usually) in real life.
Tom Vogt had given a very good description of the molecular absorption and decays in a thread in CA a few months a go, between vibrational levels and rotational levels etc. If you see him around, catch him, because I cannot find the thread, CA does not do names.
I cannot follow your numbers, but am sure of one thing. The science is not settled.
Thank you, Ann. Definitevely, the science is not settled.
Indeed, Feynman’s diagram is a quite clear representation of photon-photon interactions and shows some phenomena proposed by the quantum field theory. For example, in |e+.e-| collision-annihilation the final state is |γ. γ|. The latter has been demonstrated experimentally in colliders. There are other interactions, like entanglement, perturbations of S-Matrix, etc.
The problem is that the interactions of particles have been erroneously and systematically ignored still when we know they happen in real nature.

A bit off topic (apologies) but Wikipedia has come up with ‘proof’ of global warming. A glacier in Bolivia has almost disappeared. The only problem I have with this theory is the paragraph detailing how it’s too cold to ski in winter and all skiing must be done in summer. It’s the only South American ski resort to have the same season as North America. So if it’s still cold enough to ski in summer and too cold to ski in winter, how on Earth can AGW have melted a glacier? Am I missing something?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chacaltaya

Tata
I forgive your cherry picking – I’ii settle for no significant change. However I’m still looking at an OHC of about plus 10 (Levitus) and a fall of 1.5 (Loehle) and a fall of 0.4 (Willis) – now I call that significant.

Jim Masterson (09:15:19) :Maybe they’re incorrect. Unreal would be pushing the envelope.
I meant, those numbers are not supported by observation.For IR frequencies, the Earth is essentially a black body.
Considering that the Earth is essentially a black body for IR frequencies is an idealization. Actually, Earth is not a blackbody. I think the concept of blackbody has been twisted. Of course, it was not you who twisted it.It doesn’t. It’s stuck in a feedback loop between the surface and the atmosphere.
Nobody in correct science refers to such “loops” as creators of energy from the nothingness. Not even quantum loops or quantum tunnels are capable of creating energy from the nothingness. If Trenberth et al are referring to a change of energy density from one quantum level to another, i couldn’t be the trajectory proposed by quantum theory, which adheres punctually to the conservation of energy.
The way it is presented in Trenberth’s diagram could be interpreted like a singularity; however, singularities only occur in formal sciences, not in nature.And it doesn’t. The numbers all balance. Try the Stefan-Boltzmann law using the Earth’s surface temperature and an emissivity of 1.0. You’re going to need to deal with those numbers.
The only balance we see in Trenberth’s diagram is the incoming energy from the Sun and the Outgoing energy from the Earth. Other figures in that diagram are not real (that is, they don’t happen in real nature). Nasif: Besides, there is no reference to potential energy. I understand they have not considered the potential energy which is converted to kinetic energy because it is a negligible quantity (0.002 W/m^2) which could affect the oceans. In reality, the oceans dissipate that tiny amount in their dynamics.You: It’s not required.Could you expand on this assertion?Ditto.
The question remains alive. Me too; and that is there where unreality arises because air is a gray body with very low absorptivities-emissivities, except water vapor which has an absorptivity-emissivity of 0.75. Carbon dioxide has an absorptivity-emissivity of 0.001. (Modest. 1998). <<
These are all good arguments.
Thank you. These are not only arguments; these are all the product of careful observation and experimentation.THC is the acronym I’ve seen. I’ll just remember you’re using TOC.
Thanks for the correction. From now on I will use the acronym THC.

>> Nasif Nahle (14:05:01) :
I meant, those numbers are not supported by observation. <<
Okay.
>> Considering that the Earth is essentially a black body for IR frequencies is an idealization. Actually, Earth is not a blackbody. I think the concept of blackbody has been twisted. Of course, it was not you who twisted it. <<
It could be that I’m the one who’s twisted it.
>> Nobody in correct science refers to such “loops” as creators of energy from the nothingness. <<
It’s not required. Nothing is created. I’ve modeled Trenbeth’s KT97 diagram, and it balances just fine.
>> The only balance we see in Trenberth’s diagram is the incoming energy from the Sun and the Outgoing energy from the Earth. Other figures in that diagram are not real (that is, they don’t happen in real nature). <<
I beg to differ. The entire diagram balances. The surface receives 168W/m^2 + 324W/m^2 and loses 24W/m^2 + 78 W/m^2 + 390 W/m^2. Those numbers add up and are equal. The atmosphere receives 67W/m^2 + 24W/m^2 + 78W/m^2 + 350W/m^2 and loses 165W/m^2 + 30W/m^2 + 324W/m^2. Those numbers add up and are equal. And since the incoming and outgoing add up, then I don’t see where the diagram has a balance problem.
We’ll use Trenberth’s technique. The average surface temperature is 288K. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law we have 1.0*(5.670400*10^-8 W/(m^2*K^4))*(288K)^4 = 390.1W/m^2. There’s some justification for using 390W/m^2 for surface flux.
I’ve played with the other numbers, and there’s justification for those numbers too. The only number I have a major problem with is the 40W/m^2 for the atmospheric window.
However, it’s not the values of the fluxes that are a problem–it’s how they respond to GHGs that invalidates the model.
>> Could you expand on this assertion? <<
See above.
>> Thanks for the correction. From now on I will use the acronym THC. <<
You don’t have to on my account.
Jim

If Trenberth et al are referring to a change of energy density from one quantum level to another, i couldn’t be the trajectory proposed by quantum theory, which adheres punctually to the conservation of energy.

I’m lost at this point in the discussion. You keep bringing up a violation of energy conservation, but I’m not seeing it.

The only balance we see in Trenberth’s diagram is the incoming energy from the Sun and the Outgoing energy from the Earth. Other figures in that diagram are not real (that is, they don’t happen in real nature).

Net energy transports don’t occur between (grossly aggregated) categories in the atmosphere-ocean system? renberth’s diagram is a simplified model for the energy budget. If you accept the equilibrium radiation budget for the earth as is, why is the rest any less real?

Besides, there is no reference to potential energy. I understand they have not considered the potential energy which is converted to kinetic energy because it is a negligible quantity (0.002 W/m^2) which could affect the oceans. In reality, the oceans dissipate that tiny amount in their dynamics.

Again please explain why this matteres.

that is there where unreality arises because air is a gray body with very low absorptivities-emissivities, except water vapor which has an absorptivity-emissivity of 0.75. Carbon dioxide has an absorptivity-emissivity of 0.001. (Modest. 1998).

Is there a path length attached to that figure?

Thanks for the correction. From now on I will use the acronym THC.

You could use even MOC if you care about the net meridional heat transport.

Jim Masterson (21:47:53) :It’s not required. Nothing is created. I’ve modeled Trenbeth’s KT97 diagram, and it balances just fine…
I beg to differ. The entire diagram balances. The surface receives 168W/m^2 + 324W/m^2 and loses 24W/m^2 + 78 W/m^2 + 390 W/m^2. Those numbers add up and are equal. The atmosphere receives 67W/m^2 + 24W/m^2 + 78W/m^2 + 350W/m^2 and loses 165W/m^2 + 30W/m^2 + 324W/m^2. Those numbers add up and are equal. And since the incoming and outgoing add up, then I don’t see where the diagram has a balance problem.
We’ll use Trenberth’s technique. The average surface temperature is 288K. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law we have 1.0*(5.670400*10^-8 W/(m^2*K^4))*(288K)^4 = 390.1W/m^2. There’s some justification for using 390W/m^2 for surface flux.
I have bolded the figures taken out from under the sleeve for which Trenberth et al have not shown justification.
First, let’s see the Global Flux of Energy (G) of the whole system from real measurements under annual mean conditions:
Incoming Solar Radiation = 238 W/m^2, from which…
The atmosphere absorbs 68 W/m^2 (about 30%), and…
The surface absorbs 170 W/m^2, from which…
The surface radiates 68 W/m^2 to the atmosphere and 20.4 W/m^2 are emitted to the outer space (“window”).
From the terrestrial LW radiation, the atmosphere absorbs 47.6 W/m^2.
The latent heat released is 79 W/m^2, which added to the radiation absorbed by the surface (68 W/m^2) is 147 W/m^2. 147 W/m^2 plus sensible heat (20.4 W/m^2) is 167.4 W/m^2.
There seems to be a deficit of 2.6 W/m^2, but there is not such deficit; it’s exactly the load of radiation converted to potential energy.
Circumscribing the process only to the atmosphere:
Absorption of Solar Radiation = 68 W/m^2
Absorption of LW surface radiation = 47.6 W/m^2
LHR = 79 W/m^2
Sensible Heat Flux = 20.4 W/m^2
Friction = 1.9 W/m^2
Kinetic Energy transferred to Oceans Dynamics = 0.7 W/m^2
G = 238 – 68 – 47.6 – 79 – 20.4 – 1.9 – 0.7 = -20.4 W/m^2
Actually, Trenberth’s “window” is 20.4 W/m^2, which matches with the sensible heat flux but are not the same.
Now, let’s see the general panorama:
Incident Solar Radiation upon top of the atmosphere (ISR) = 238 W/m^2
Radiation emitted by the surface to the outer space (RS) = 20.4 W/m^2
Radiation emitted by the atmosphere to the outer space (RA) = 129.2 W/m^2 (Q absorbed from surface radiation + Latent Heat + friction + kinetic energy used by oceans dynamics |47.6 + 79 + 1.9 + 0.7|).
Radiation emitted from clouds (RC) = 88.4 W/m^2
ISR = RS + RA + RC = 238 W/m^2
I’ve used only real data. I didn’t make use of “loops”, quantum tunnels or creation of energy from nothingness for Earth’s energy balance. So your problem on the “window” has been solved.
I would have also considered the entropic budget which is clearer for illustrating the process.

>> Nasif Nahle (00:42:14) :
I have bolded the figures taken out from under the sleeve for which Trenberth et al have not shown justification. <<
I guess. One individual’s justification is another’s hand waving.
>> First, let’s see the Global Flux of Energy (G) of the whole system from real measurements under annual mean conditions: . . . . <<
I love numbers. With numbers we get details, and the Devil’s in the details.
By your model, the surface absorbs 170 W/m^2, and the surface loses 20.4 W/m^2 + 79 W/m^2 + 68 W/m^2 + 2.6 W/m^2.
You don’t show any feedback radiation (unless I’m missing something). That would imply that for your model an atmosphere has no effect on surface temperature. I think most would find that quite amazing.
Just for grins, let’s calculate the emissivity for a surface that radiates 68 W/m^2 at a temperature of 288K:
e = (68 W/m^2)/((5.670400*10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)*(288K)^4) = 0.174
I think 0.174 is a little too low. The U.S. Navy at least gives a 0.5 emissivity for the ocean surface (all frequencies). Generally LW radiation is limited to IR emissivities only. You can argue otherwise, but I think it’s going to be an uphill battle. I would entertain a surface emissivity of around 0.65 (all frequencies). If we calculate a surface flux for an emissivity of 0.65 at a surface temperature of 288K we get:
J = (0.65)*(5.670400*10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)*(288K)^4 = 254 W/m^2
That 68 W/m^2 will need some pumping up. Nothing pumps up flux like feedback.
Jim

Jim Masterson (06:30:15) :Just for grins, let’s calculate the emissivity for a surface that radiates 68 W/m^2 at a temperature of 288K:
e = (68 W/m^2)/((5.670400*10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)*(288K)^4) = 0.174
I think 0.174 is a little too low. The U.S. Navy at least gives a 0.5 emissivity for the ocean surface (all frequencies).
You’re close to clear up the origin and real magnitude of “window”, but not enough close.
Global emissivity of surface, which includes hydrosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere and biosphere, is 0.23. Perhaps you forgot the sensible heat flux from the surface to the outer space and not considering global conditions.
I said in my previous post: “First, let’s see the Global Flux of Energy (G) of the whole system from real measurements under annual mean conditions”:Generally LW radiation is limited to IR emissivities only. You can argue otherwise, but I think it’s going to be an uphill battle. I would entertain a surface emissivity of around 0.65 (all frequencies). If we calculate a surface flux for an emissivity of 0.65 at a surface temperature of 288K we get:
J = (0.65)*(5.670400*10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)*(288K)^4 = 254 W/m^2
That 68 W/m^2 will need some pumping up. Nothing pumps up flux like feedback.
As I said in my previous post, my numbers were taken from real measurements, so they include natural feedbacks without need of mentioning them. Trenberth et al have the need of inventing quantities for feedbacks; I have not because it’s nature which makes the process, not my computer.
Regarding downwelling radiation from the atmosphere to the surface, as I’ve said in other posts, it is the photon stream from the surface which cancels it during nighttime.
In terms of entropy, it is -29.5 mW/m^2 K for incident solar irradiance upon surface, 71 mW/m^2 K for the sensible heat flux, and 236 mW/m^2 K for terrestrial radiation, which confirms what I’ve said about a global surface emissivity of 0.23.
By the way, feedbacks, or loops, don’t create energy from nothingness and, if there are not more energy inputs from a source with a higher energy density, it would not be increases of heat flux. If one asserts that 238 W/m^2 are transformed in 390 W/m^2 by loops or feedbacks, one would be founded on a sort of miracle.

>> Nasif Nahle (09:03:25) :
You’re close to clear up the origin and real magnitude of “window”, but not enough close. <<
At least I’m improving.
>> Global emissivity of surface, which includes hydrosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere and biosphere, is 0.23. <<
So we can calculate your surface flux:
J = (0.23)*(5.670400*10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)*(288K)^4 = 89.7 W/m^2
>> Perhaps you forgot the sensible heat flux from the surface to the outer space and not considering global conditions. <<
Perhaps. I didn’t know that sensible heat flux could transfer energy directly from the surface to outer space. I’ll have to add that to my bag of tricks.
>> As I said in my previous post, my numbers were taken from real measurements, so they include natural feedbacks without need of mentioning them. <<
Stealth feedbacks?
>> Trenberth et al have the need of inventing quantities for feedbacks; I have not because it’s nature which makes the process, not my computer. <<
If we’re talking about up verses down, then Trenberth’s numbers are 390 W/m^2 – 324 W/m^2 = 66 W/m^2. That’s very close to your 68 W/m^2 (without the stealth feedback, of course). So by your own numbers, you have a stealth feedback of 89.7 W/m^2 – 68 W/m^2 = 21.7 W/m^2.
>> In terms of entropy, it is -29.5 mW/m^2 K for incident solar irradiance upon surface, 71 mW/m^2 K for the sensible heat flux, and 236 mW/m^2 K for terrestrial radiation, which confirms what I’ve said about a global surface emissivity of 0.23. <<
I’ll have to chew on those numbers for a while.
>> By the way, feedbacks, or loops, don’t create energy from nothingness and, if there are not more energy inputs from a source with a higher energy density, it would not be increases of heat flux. If one asserts that 238 W/m^2 are transformed in 390 W/m^2 by loops or feedbacks, one would be founded on a sort of miracle. <<
With steady-state systems, it’s possible to store energy temporarily in feedback loops. By your logic, dams wouldn’t work. For about the same stream/river flow rate, a dam will increase the force on the turbine blades in a power plant and multiply the power output. It’s another sort of miracle!
Jim

Never mind angels on pin heads can anyone give an answer to my earlier post.
There have been some useful links given above. It seems to me that the OHC calculations of Levitus et al. seem to confirm the IPCC models or even exceed the predictions, thereby giving major support to the warmists. In the discussion above I cannot see any serious criticism of these results.
There is discrepancy of about 8 J *10/22(+7 to minus 1) between the Levitus approach and that of Willis and Loele. Am I missing something? The volume of ocean is pretty much defined i.e the area of the ocean is a known to within some reasonable degree of accuracy and the depth assumed in the calculations is set at 700m and surely the temperature variation cannot account for this degree of difference.. So what has generated this degree of disparity?

Jim Masterson (12:00:32) : Global emissivity of surface, which includes hydrosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere and biosphere, is 0.23. <<
So we can calculate your surface flux:
J = (0.23)*(5.670400*10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)*(288K)^4 = 89.7 W/m^2
Yes, now your calculation is correct.Perhaps you forgot the sensible heat flux from the surface to the outer space and not considering global conditions. <<
Perhaps. I didn’t know that sensible heat flux could transfer energy directly from the surface to outer space. I’ll have to add that to my bag of tricks.
No trick for your bag, sorry:
Sensible heat flux from the surface = 20.4 W/m^2
Terrestrial Radiation from Earth’s surface = 20.4 W/m^2As I said in my previous post, my numbers were taken from real measurements, so they include natural feedbacks without need of mentioning them. <<
Stealth feedbacks?
Nope, those are real measurements taken directly from nature, so feedbacks are working into the matrix; no matter if I mentioned them or not.Trenberth et al have the need of inventing quantities for feedbacks; I have not because it’s nature which makes the process, not my computer. <<
If we’re talking about up verses down, then Trenberth’s numbers are 390 W/m^2 – 324 W/m^2 = 66 W/m^2. That’s very close to your 68 W/m^2 (without the stealth feedback, of course). So by your own numbers, you have a stealth feedback of 89.7 W/m^2 – 68 W/m^2 = 21.7 W/m^2.
If 248 W/m^2 are the measured energy incoming from the Sun at the top of the atmosphere, and Trenberth consigns 390 W/m^2, hasn’t he created energy from the nothingness?
Your numbers are wrong… Trenberth pictured 390 W/m^2 for a magic energy emitted from the surface to the atmosphere and another load of magic energy radiated from the atmosphere to the surface of 333 W/m^2. Trenberth’s adds a magic absorptivity of surface equal to 100% and another magic emissivity of the air equal to 100%. Thus, your numbers are wrong:
390 W/m^2 – 333 W/m^2 = 57 W/m^2
The difference between that magic number and the real radiation emitted by surface plus the sensible heat flux is quite high (88.4 – 57 = 31.4).
Besides, I’m not inventing the cipher, you can measure it with a good radiometer or, at least, investigate them at NOAA’s website, while Trenberth has invented those magic ciphers.In terms of entropy, it is -29.5 mW/m^2 K for incident solar irradiance upon surface, 71 mW/m^2 K for the sensible heat flux, and 236 mW/m^2 K for terrestrial radiation, which confirms what I’ve said about a global surface emissivity of 0.23. <<
I’ll have to chew on those numbers for a while.
It’s easy: s = G/TBy the way, feedbacks, or loops, don’t create energy from nothingness and, if there are not more energy inputs from a source with a higher energy density, it would not be increases of heat flux. If one asserts that 238 W/m^2 are transformed in 390 W/m^2 by loops or feedbacks, one would be founded on a sort of miracle. <<
With steady-state systems, it’s possible to store energy temporarily in feedback loops. By your logic, dams wouldn’t work. For about the same stream/river flow rate, a dam will increase the force on the turbine blades in a power plant and multiply the power output. It’s another sort of miracle!
Again, it’s not my logic… Are real measurements. Besides, I’ve said that quantum loops, feedbacks, quantum tunnels, etc., don’t create energy from the nothingness. It’s obvious that Trenberth et al consigns a high excess of energy which has not even been absorbed by the surface.
How is it possible that the surface had absorbed 68 W/m^2 of energy and had emitted 390 W/m^2? Aren’t Trenberth et al talking about energy balance?

Nasif Nahle,
Would you mind providing references for your real measurements taken directly from nature? It would make it easier for the discussion to progress if everyone is able to look at the same measurements.
Meanwhile I can show you two tanks of water which are feeding water into each other at an enormous rate; yet the total volume in each tank is hardly changing, and no water is being created by quantum or any other means.

“”” Nasif Nahle (12:52:25) :
anna v (04:00:02) :
Nasif Nahle (17:38:28) :
In your reply to George E. Smith (10:26:44)
I know, Dr. Smith, that you don’t agree with theories on photon-photon interactions because you have clearly expressed it in one of your posts. However, there are experiments in colliders which have demonstrated a sort of photon-photon interactions. “””
I’m not sure who wrote the above; whether Anna or Nasif; but for the record; I have no idea who Dr. smith might be, although I am sure there is one somewhere; maybe several; but I’m not one of them. I merely have a lowly Bachelor’s degree; but given that it is from the University of Auckland (1957) it might be more or less equivalent to some PhDs. I passed on the Masters and Doctorate, in favor of the same number of years out in Industry actually doing Physics, and Mathematics, rather than just reading about it.
So please don’t annoint me with any shingles I haven’t earned.
But speaking of photon-photon interractions, for photons in the solar spectrum range, and earth emitted IR range; what would be the crossections for such photon-photon interrations.
But if Nasif wants to insist that the incoming solar photons stop the exit of long wave IR photons from surface thermal emissions; then I would have to plead total ignorance of such a process; but then that’s why I am here; to learn something.
George

Given that the change in the heat content of an object or system with fixed mass is measured by recording the change in it’s temperature, I’m not sure how significant the distinction is between monitoring global warming by a heat accounting method or an average temperature accounting method. What does strike me as significant is the fact that, for ocean water to act as a sink for the additional heat generated by manmade CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, the atmosphere has to rise in temperature (gain heat content) so that the added heat can be transferred to the oceans. It also seems logical to me that the temperature increase in the atmosphere has to precede the temperature increase in the oceans or the land surface, meaning that the long-term changes in temperature anomolies for the atmosphere (normalized for mass/thermal capacity) should be steeper than the corresponding long term anomoly changes for the land and ocean surfaces. However, we seem to observe the reverse happening – the satellite measurements of the atmospheric temperature are recording a lower rate of temperature increase than that shown by NASA’s land-ocean surface temperature index. If not falsifying the global warming hypothesis, it should certainly set a limit on the amount of the actual warming that could possibly be attributed to CO2 – i.e. the actual rate of warming due to CO2 is better reflected in the lower-anomoly atmospheric measurements than the higher-anomoly ocean/surface measurements, because the former is where the anthropogenic signal originates and the latter is where it accumulates.

“”” Jim Masterson (11:52:49) :
>> George E. Smith (11:40:18) :
. . . for some reason that 324 W/m^2 of back radiation is much more than the 168 W/m^2 from the sun. (I’m not kidding; these are NOAA’s numbers) <<
Actually, George, those numbers come from a paper by Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 (see figure seven). The numbers have changed slightly because of a new paper (see figure one). The first paper has several errors and the second paper doesn’t correct them. If I had the time and the inclination I would discuss them with you.
Jim “””
Hey Jim,
Thanks for those two papers. I got those numbers from a fancy bright colored diagram somewhere on a NOAA site; but I’m not surprised they have some other original origin.
Of course I don’t agree with that diagram; because I am sure there is no planet of interest to us where that takes place. I’m not used to a planet that is totally inside a hollow sun which emits a uniform radiation from all over its inner surface but with a very limited 0.5 degree total angular divergence, so that every point on the planet sees a half degree diameter sun directly overhead 24 hours a day 365 days a year.
I’m used to an insolation level that is more like 1 kW/m^2 but only at those points on earth that are in daylight, and only for those daylight hours. Such a planet is going to react quite differently from Trenberth et al’s planet.
So I’m curious about those spectral pictures in the papers, with the CO2 and ozone holes in them. Are they computer calculated curves; or are they actual observations, say from outer space; of the emissions from this planet.
I’m familiar with the general shape of them, including the significant difference between the ozone band and the CO2 band shapes; but my source of similar curves (The Infra-Red Handbook) has only theoretical curves; not measured ones; and I’m not gung ho on the accuracy of any theory that might have been used.
Thanks again Jim
George

“”” oms (11:59:38) :
George E. Smith (11:00:16) :
the basically simple process of convection due to expansion caused by heating by solar radiation never stops; hot water rises (unless some other physical or chemical change such as salinity creates an even greater density gradient in a different direction);
Ocean convection is a mirror image of the atmosphere. Solar heating heats the ocean surface most and progressively less with increasing depth; hence solar heating tends to increase, not decrease, convective stability in the tropical ocean. Meanwhile, cooling and evaporation at high latitudes (in the relative absence of solar heating) produces cold, salty water which does sink. Thus the convection has to be viewed in the context of a large scale meridional circulation, not in a local 1-d balance. “””
And repeating this: “Meanwhile, cooling and evaporation at high latitudes (in the relative absence of solar heating) produces cold, salty water which does sink. ”
Sounds to me that cooling and evaporation at high latitiudes; is a purely surface phenomenon, and as those surface layers cool by energy loss to the atmosphere, the solar warmed deeper waters must continue to rise until they become the cool and evaporating layers. Then I agree at that point the colder water can sink; but I don’t see how it can sink while carrying its load of solar energy.
So I still maintain that the solar warmed layers must rise to the surface and give up their thermal energy excess, before they move into the colder polar regions where they can sink to complete the loop. The soalr energy is returned to the atmosphere for radiation to space; it is not stored in the deep oceans.
George

So I still maintain that the solar warmed layers must rise to the surface and give up their thermal energy excess, before they move into the colder polar regions where they can sink to complete the loop. The soalr energy is returned to the atmosphere for radiation to space; it is not stored in the deep oceans.

So are you arguing that there is a general circulation in the ocean and that it is important?

oms (15:10:10) :Nasif Nahle,
Would you mind providing references for your real measurements taken directly from nature? It would make it easier for the discussion to progress if everyone is able to look at the same measurements.
Meanwhile I can show you two tanks of water which are feeding water into each other at an enormous rate; yet the total volume in each tank is hardly changing, and no water is being created by quantum or any other means.
Manrique. Transferencia de Calor. 2002. Oxford University Press. Page 285.
Peixoto and Oort. Physics of Climate. 1992. Springer-Verlag New York. Pp. 366-410.
NOAA: Gunn, J., 1993, Global Energy Balances Data Set.IGBP PAGES/World Data Center-A for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 93-006.
BTW, I didn’t say it; Trenberth et al suggest it in their diagram on energy budget. 🙂

George E. Smith (15:45:20):Nasif Nahle (17:38:28) :
In your reply to George E. Smith (10:26:44)
I know, Dr. Smith, that you don’t agree with theories on photon-photon interactions because you have clearly expressed it in one of your posts. However, there are experiments in colliders which have demonstrated a sort of photon-photon interactions.
I’m not sure who wrote the above; whether Anna or Nasif; but for the record; I have no idea who Dr. smith might be, although I am sure there is one somewhere; maybe several; but I’m not one of them. I merely have a lowly Bachelor’s degree; but given that it is from the University of Auckland (1957) it might be more or less equivalent to some PhDs. I passed on the Masters and Doctorate, in favor of the same number of years out in Industry actually doing Physics, and Mathematics, rather than just reading about it.
So please don’t annoint me with any shingles I haven’t earned.
It was me who wrote Dr. Smith. My mistake.But speaking of photon-photon interractions, for photons in the solar spectrum range, and earth emitted IR range; what would be the crossections for such photon-photon interrations.
Your mistake… I didn’t talk about photon-photon interactions in the solar spectrum range. I said that you, George E. Smith, were dennying the photon-photon interactions when it has been demonstrated they occur in colliders.
Besides, I’m talking about interactions of photons with matter, i.e. particles, atoms and molecules.But if Nasif wants to insist that the incoming solar photons stop the exit of long wave IR photons from surface thermal emissions; then I would have to plead total ignorance of such a process; but then that’s why I am here; to learn something.
Another mistake on your side. I have not said that the incoming solar photon stream stops the exit of LW IR photons from surface thermal emissions. I said that the photon stream induces the negative absorption of photons from molecules in the same direction of the photon stream overwhelming to the spontaneous emission.
I see that you are not understanding the meaning of spontaneous emission, induced negative absorption and induced absorption, so I could help you, if you wish.
Nasif

BTW, I said also that, during nighttime the surface photon stream overwhelms the spontaneous emission of photons by the air, so the so called downwelling radiation during nighttime is a fairies tale.
The heat stored during daytime by the surface (land and oceans) and subsurface materials is what warms the air during nighttime. There is not such warming of the surface by the energy radiated by the air during nighttime. It’s another fairies tale.
Another fairies tale is with respect to an AGW assertion on line on the sense that convection stops during nighttime. Actually, convection doesn’t stop at any moment; what happens is that natural convection prevails during nighttime when the Earth is not affected by the solar forcing external operator (during nighttime, of course).

Spen: “There is discrepancy of about 8 J *10/22(+7 to minus 1) between the Levitus approach and that of Willis and Loele. Am I missing something?”
For the period from 2003-2008 (covered by my paper) the Levitus article shows very little change in ocean heat on average (there are always going to be seasonal variations). See:http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ with link to….ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
In the decade from 1993-2003 there was a large increase (~1×10^22 Joules/year) which was taken as confirmation of AGW.

What if it is just a matter of warm water being pushed off to the side and piling up next to a land mass, revealing colder layers that get mixed with the left over warm choppy seas stuff that didn’t hitch a ride on the Coriolis wind? Then the warm stuff slowly gets circulated to a “vent” somewhere (poles? standing evaporation?). Of course, there is a slow deep sea current that slides down one side of the ocean and wells up on the other side, but what if this is not the mechanism? What if it is simply the cyclic wind pushing surface warmed water off to the side? So then the question is what causes the trade winds to build up and then die down. And, what kind of cycles do these trade winds have? Simple ones or complicated ones? Is it like a double dutch jump-rope beat with a single rope inside on quick time using a syncopated beat? (I used to be able to do that)

>> Nasif Nahle (14:28:01) :
Yes, now your calculation is correct. <<
My calculation would need a correct surface temperature (288K) too. Are you saying that 288K is the correct average surface temperature?
>> No trick for your bag, sorry: <<
That’ll make it easier to carry.
>> Sensible heat flux from the surface = 20.4 W/m^2
Terrestrial Radiation from Earth’s surface = 20.4 W/m^2 <<
I don’t understand you implication here. First you say that sensible heat and IR window fluxes just happen to have the same value. Now are you saying they are the same flows? Aren’t you mixing apples and oranges?
>> Nope, those are real measurements taken directly from nature, so feedbacks are working into the matrix; no matter if I mentioned them or not. <<
It’s difficult to model feedbacks when they aren’t specified. A bistable multivibrator (flip-flop) wouldn’t work without two explicit feedbacks.
>> If 248 W/m^2 are the measured energy incoming from the Sun at the top of the atmosphere, and Trenberth consigns 390 W/m^2, hasn’t he created energy from the nothingness? <<
Not necessarily.
>> Your numbers are wrong… <<
You’re not the first to tell me so.
>> Trenberth pictured 390 W/m^2 for a magic energy emitted from the surface to the atmosphere and another load of magic energy radiated from the atmosphere to the surface of 333 W/m^2. . . . Thus, your numbers are wrong:
390 W/m^2 – 333 W/m^2 = 57 W/m^2 <<
You’re confusing your papers. 390 W/m^2 comes from KT97, and 333 W/m^2 comes from TFK09.
You should either use KT97: 390 W/m^2 – 324 W/m^2 = 66 W/m^2;
or use TFK09: 396 W/m^2 – 333 W/m^2 = 63 W/m^2
>> Trenberth’s adds a magic absorptivity of surface equal to 100% and another magic emissivity of the air equal to 100%. <<
Don’t you like magic?
>> The difference between that magic number and the real radiation emitted by surface plus the sensible heat flux is quite high (88.4 – 57 = 31.4). <<
Shouldn’t that be (88.4 W/m^2 – 63 W/m^2 = 25.4 W/m^2) or is it (88.4 W/m^2 – 66 W/m^2 = 22.4 W/m^2)? (I have no clue as to what this calculation is supposed to indicate.)
>> Besides, I’m not inventing the cipher, you can measure it with a good radiometer or, at least, investigate them at NOAA’s website, while Trenberth has invented those magic ciphers. <<
Unfortunately, he’s not alone.
>> It’s easy: s = G/T <<
Entropy is not my strong suit. Just ask my thermodynamics professor–if he’s still alive.
>> How is it possible that the surface had absorbed 68 W/m^2 of energy and had emitted 390 W/m^2? Aren’t Trenberth et al talking about energy balance? <<
They could be. All I’m saying is that I can model Trenberth’s numbers and get some interesting results. Your numbers would be harder to model. Stealth feedbacks would probably render the model useless.
Jim

Jim Masterson (07:28:31) :My calculation would need a correct surface temperature (288K) too. Are you saying that 288K is the correct average surface temperature?
Did I say it?No trick for your bag, sorry: <<
That’ll make it easier to carry.
Good for you…Sensible heat flux from the surface = 20.4 W/m^2
Terrestrial Radiation from Earth’s surface = 20.4 W/m^2
I don’t understand you implication here. First you say that sensible heat and IR window fluxes just happen to have the same value. Now are you saying they are the same flows? Aren’t you mixing apples and oranges?
Again, did I say they are the same flows?Nope, those are real measurements taken directly from nature, so feedbacks are working into the matrix; no matter if I mentioned them or not.
It’s difficult to model feedbacks when they aren’t specified. A bistable multivibrator (flip-flop) wouldn’t work without two explicit feedbacks.
I’m not writing here a physics of climate treatise. Check those feedbacks out from Physics of Climate by Peixoto and Oort.If 248 W/m^2 are the measured energy incoming from the Sun at the top of the atmosphere, and Trenberth consigns 390 W/m^2, hasn’t he created energy from the nothingness?
Not necessarily.
If you have a plausible explanation on Trenberth’s creation of energy from nothingness, consign it here. It’s your opportunity.
>> Trenberth pictured 390 W/m^2 for a magic energy emitted from the surface to the atmosphere and another load of magic energy radiated from the atmosphere to the surface of 333 W/m^2. . . . Thus, your numbers are wrong:390 W/m^2 – 333 W/m^2 = 57 W/m^2 <<
You’re confusing your papers. 390 W/m^2 comes from KT97, and 333 W/m^2 comes from TFK09.
You should either use KT97: 390 W/m^2 – 324 W/m^2 = 66 W/m^2;
or use TFK09: 396 W/m^2 – 333 W/m^2 = 63 W/m^2
Anyway, your comparison is wrong.Trenberth’s adds a magic absorptivity of surface equal to 100% and another magic emissivity of the air equal to 100%. <<
Don’t you like magic?
I like only good magic performed by professional magicians. I don’t like pseudoscientific magic.Shouldn’t that be (88.4 W/m^2 – 63 W/m^2 = 25.4 W/m^2) or is it (88.4 W/m^2 – 66 W/m^2 = 22.4 W/m^2)? (I have no clue as to what this calculation is supposed to indicate.)
If considering your magic numbers, yes, it should be 25.4 W/m^2. Anyway, your comparison is wrong.Besides, I’m not inventing the cipher, you can measure it with a good radiometer or, at least, investigate them at NOAA’s website, while Trenberth has invented those magic ciphers. <<
Unfortunately, he’s not alone.
I’m not alone, either; however, that’s not evidence that any of us is wrong or right. Trenberth’s numbers don’t coincide with reality; my numbers coincide with reality.
Would you say that a model is more real than reality?It’s easy: s = G/T <<
Entropy is not my strong suit. Just ask my thermodynamics professor–if he’s still alive.
Perhaps that’s the reason you trust on Trenberth’s magic? The first law of thermodynamics chops his numbers.How is it possible that the surface had absorbed 68 W/m^2 of energy and had emitted 390 W/m^2? Aren’t Trenberth et al talking about energy balance? <<
They could be. All I’m saying is that I can model Trenberth’s numbers and get some interesting results. Your numbers would be harder to model. Stealth feedbacks would probably render the model useless.
What feedbacks do you need? Aren’t they the same feedbacks used on your models? I’ll help you on those feedbacks which you cannot find on calculations; just tell me what feedbacks you need for modeling. It would be easy for me.
It seems that you think a measurement taken from nature is not valid because it doesn’t disclose feedbacks. What you’re arguing is that a measurement of Temperature or radiative energy is wrong because it doesn’t disclose feedbacks. That’s not the way scientists work.

Re Nasif and Jim M donnybrook above; I just presumed that the 390W/m^2 emitted from the surface (which I got from a NOAA site) is just the expected Black body radiation for a +15 deg C temperature (about 288K). That’s a reasonable number I suppose for the ocean surfaces, because the deep oceans ought to appear pretty much black for radiation longer than about 10 microns.
I don’t like the use of the budget that Trenberth et al usggest, because it is not a true representation of what the earth’s surface really does. The temperature is not 15C all over but can be anywhere in the extrewme range from -90C to over +60C, and the BB radiation over that range has about a 12:1 ratio; so hot lenad surfaces can be emitting twice that 390 number; at the same time as Antarctic winter nights are meitting six times less; not to mention the Wien spectrum displacement which will modify the importance of CO2 depending on the terrain and local temperature.
It is the temperature averaging that I disagree with, since it underestimates the total surface emissions. The general spectral shapes in those Trenberth et al papers do seem quite BB in shape with some grey factor plus some “color” distortions due to CO2 and ozone.
I’m surprised to not see much in the way of water absorption; which should have major impacts on those shapes; which leads me to wonder if those curves are computer models rather that actual real world observations.
As to feedbacks; it makes no sense to me to talk about feedbacks unless you are willing to put in the real time or frequency response relating to those feedback mechanisms; because in my experience almost any system involving thermal effects; ends up being an oscillator if there are any feedbacks.
Water vapor absorption and subsequent heating (meaning more water evaporation, and more warming) is certainly something that does not need any stimulus input from CO2 or anything else.
In my view, water vapor feedback ‘enhancement’ of CO2 induced warming is a crutch that is necessary to prop up the unsupportable Arrhenius CO2 global warming thesis; and the concept of a “climate sensitivity” number whether 1.2 deg C for doubled CO2 or some other number (pick one); that seems to be a backbone of standard climatology greenhouse theory is total nonsense.
Given that the earth’s surface radiant emittance varies by more than an order of magnitude depending on location and terrain; even assuming a uniform constant CO2 abundance worldwide; the warming effect of CO2 cannot be any universal number like “climate sensitivity” connotes; and trying to devise some sort of average number to represent that, immediately raises the whole issue of sampling regimen validity all over again.
If this is the state of that “science” then we are all in trouble.
George

“”” oms (17:04:51) :
George E. Smith (16:46:18) :
So I still maintain that the solar warmed layers must rise to the surface and give up their thermal energy excess, before they move into the colder polar regions where they can sink to complete the loop. The soalr energy is returned to the atmosphere for radiation to space; it is not stored in the deep oceans.
So are you arguing that there is a general circulation in the ocean and that it is important? “””
Well OMS, I wouldn’t exactly say that I have been making that argument; in fact I would have to plead considerable ignorance relating to those circulations. But now that you ask the question; yes I am quite sure there are general circulations in the oceans, and also in the atmosphere; both of which result in global transport of thermal energies from place to place; and yes I am quite sure they are important as regards the local climate of various geographical regions; as well as having an effect on global energy balance.
But believe me, I am way out of my league when it comes to the hows and whys of those circulations; and I’m too long in the tooth to go and take a course in meteorology; specially since I have some extremely knowledgable meteorologist friends.
So I am pretty much ignorant of what causes el ninos, and la ninas, and PDOs and their Atlantic cousins; but I suspect that the folks who study those things do know what makes them tick.
So being basically a physicist, I tend to stay with the basic energy balance question; and to me it seems pretty obvious that water in its three phases in the environment pretty much has total feedback control of the earth’s temperature range; and we couldn’t change that much either up or down, if we wanted to; and CO2 has almost no say in the matter in my view.
But yes circulations exist and I believe they are important; and I am too ignorant in that area to comment much rationally.
George

Dipuccio wrote: “Willis provides the quality controlled ARGO data set. So he would not have granted permission to Pielke without basing it on actual observations.”
No, Willis hasn’t evaluated if your extrapolation of the Willis-curve is in line with observations past 2007, and granted permission to extrapolate based on such an evaluation. I asked Willis about this, and he answered that the trend line shown in the plot (the green “willis-curve” in your plot) simply was a fit to his data through mid-2007 when the ocean heat content was a bit low. He also said that there is a significant amount of interannual variability in ocean heat content, which causes problems when you try and compare just a few years of OHC-observations with IPCC projections.
In your “paper” you haven’t really made it clear that the green Willis-curve is an extrapolation. You should do that the next time you try to write something
scientific.

Bill DiPuccio (18:37:51) :
“For the period from 2003-2008 (covered by my paper) the Levitus article shows very little change in ocean heat on average (there are always going to be seasonal variations). See:http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ with link to….ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
In the decade from 1993-2003 there was a large increase (~1×10^22 Joules/year) which was taken as confirmation of AGW.
Sorry. But your graph shows (Willis and Loehle) a change OHC of minus 0.4 and 1.5 between 2003 and 2008. NOAA shows plus 6. I think 100% different is significant. Interestingly GISS is plus 5. Please help me with my interpretation

Spen: Sorry. But your graph shows (Willis and Loehle) a change OHC of minus 0.4 and 1.5 between 2003 and 2008. NOAA shows plus 6. I think 100% different is significant. Interestingly GISS is plus 5. Please help me with my interpretation
NOAA Graph: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Assuming the graph is drawn accurately, if you examine it carefully (I enlarged it and drew guidelines), from mid-2003 to 2008, there is a difference of about 2 from endpoint to endpoint. That is the period covered by my study. I did not analyze the data myself so I cannot explain why there is a variation between Willis, Loehle, and NOAA. But it is obvious that following the sharp rise there is a flattening.

Tata: No, Willis hasn’t evaluated if your extrapolation of the Willis-curve is in line with observations past 2007, and granted permission to extrapolate based on such an evaluation. I asked Willis about this, and he answered that the trend line shown in the plot (the green “willis-curve” in your plot) simply was a fit to his data through mid-2007 when the ocean heat content was a bit low….
See Pielke, http://climatesci.org/2009/02/09/update-on-a-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/
“We now have data to assess what actually occurred in terms of this metric of global warming up through the end of 2008 (i.e. see the Figure in Pielke (2008), Figure 1 in Willis et al (2008) and personal communication from Josh Willis to extend the data to the end of 2008).”
Let’s not miss the forest through the trees. As mentioned above, even the NOAA data and Levitus study shows that the curve has flattened significantly since mid-2003. If the 10 years prior was considered confirmation of the hypothesis, then we need to ask what is the significance of this more recent trend.

>> Nasif Nahle (08:27:30) :
Would you say that a model is more real than reality? <<
I’m reminded of a sign seen in a hospital: “The chart is not the patient.” I use models to give me answers to problems. If I can’t model it, then I probably don’t understand the process. A good model will make predictions. It’s also important to know where a model fails. Reality is sometimes hard to quantify. Quantities are what models do best.
Newton’s Second Law of Motion (F = m*a) is a very effective model. It obviously fails when we can’t assume mass is constant (relativistic mass).
Rhetorical questions, such as yours (along with your other comments), usually signal the end to a discussion. I thank you for your time and effort. I look forward to more discussions in the future.
Jim

I’m not a scientist, but …
The IPCC’s models (= hypothesis) predict a “hotspot” in the atmosphere over the tropics in the warming 1975-2000, due to an increase in carbon dioxide. Temperature measurements found no hotspot. Therefore the warming was not signicantly caused by an increase in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic or not.
See the U.S. Senate Committee for the Environment and Public Works Page – minority page, dealing with the more than 700 scientists who dissent who have signed that they dissent over man-made global warming claims.
Relevant to “The Missing Hotspot”, about halfway down, it states;
” “Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”
– UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.”
Doesn’t that falsify the hypothesis?

>> Robert Williams (19:49:02) :
I’m not a scientist, but …
The IPCC’s models (= hypothesis) predict a “hotspot” in the atmosphere over the tropics in the warming 1975-2000, due to an increase in carbon dioxide. Temperature measurements found no hotspot. Therefore the warming was not signicantly caused by an increase in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic or not.
. . .
Doesn’t that falsify the hypothesis? <<
Yes. The warming of the atmosphere is a requirement for the GHG model to work. The diagram from Kiehl & Trenberth 1997 (KT97) represents the quintessential model of the GHG theory. If it fails, then the theory fails.
One of the problems about arguing minutiae is that we lose the big picture. I programmed KT97 as a simple computer model, and it demonstrates this failure. If you narrow the atmospheric window (which is how any GHG is going to affect things—so we can ignore the specifics of whether we’re talking about water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) and keep all other factors equal (don’t change sensible and latent heat flux and keep the upward-downward ratios of the atmosphere the same), then the surface temperature does go up, but the atmospheric temperature goes up faster (129% minimum). If you use the bulk aerodynamic formula for sensible heat flux (as KT97 did), increase the latent heat flux at the same rate the surface heats up, and alter the upward-downward ratio of the atmosphere, then the atmosphere warms up even faster (from 160% to 190% of the surface—almost 200%).
This missing heating of the atmosphere destroys the GHG theory. Trying to hide the warming atmosphere with aerosols is nonsense. It’s like trying to warm a pot of water on the stove by blocking the burner. If the burner’s energy doesn’t reach the pot, then the pot won’t get warmer. The GHG model requires the warmer atmosphere to work—period.
The numbers on the KT97 diagram represent sloppy science. These numbers are uncertain, and there should be ranges to demonstrate that fact.
What’s interesting is if you reduce the albedo (make the Earth darker) and alter the other values as before, then my model also shows a surface heating, but the atmosphere only warms by about 70% to 90% of the surface—exactly what we see.
Jim

Thank you, Jim.
I take it that your answer is “yes”, but, not being a scientist, I do not understand the significance of what you refer to as “minutiae.”
My source was “The Missing Hotspot” by Dr David Evans, although others have referred to it. The models predict, what the models predict is not observed, therefore the models are invalid.
It seems to me that if the models are invalid, that’s final. Maybe an altered model might be valid, but that is not the issue.

>> Robert Williams (05:26:13) :
Thank you, Jim. <<
You’re welcome.
>> I take it that your answer is “yes”, but, not being a scientist, I do not understand the significance of what you refer to as “minutiae.” <<
It’s “minutia” to argue endlessly about whether the CO2 15 micron absorption band peaking out from behind the H2O absorption band is significant. I designed my model to not care, but that argument continues. There are other arguments, but it would be “minutiae” to list them all here.
>> My source was “The Missing Hotspot” by Dr David Evans, although others have referred to it. The models predict, what the models predict is not observed, therefore the models are invalid. <<
This isn’t exactly what I said. I said the models don’t support the GHG hypothesis (and by extension, the AGW hypothesis). I didn’t say that the models were invalid (however they probably aren’t correct—which is something else again).
>> It seems to me that if the models are invalid, that’s final. Maybe an altered model might be valid, but that is not the issue. <<
That should read: the GHG hypothesis is invalid for explaining the current warming trend.
Jim

SkepticalScience does a nice job in critiquing Loehle’s and DiPuccio’s various arguments on ocean cooling:http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-ocean-cooling-disprove-global-warming.htmlhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/What-causes-short-term-changes-in-ocean-heat.html
Some general conclusions:
Ocean heat content does not increase monotonically. Records show that 4-5 year periods of short-term decreases in ocean heat content are not uncommon during a long-term ocean warming trend.
A discrepancy exists between Willis’s (2008) data for ocean cooling from 2003-2008 and Leuliette’s (2009) analysis of the same raw Argo data indicating ocean warming during the same time series. Leuliette suggests that poor sampling in the early years of Argo deployments accounts for this discrepancy. A comparison between independent data sets to determine which of the two studies was more correct reveals the following:
2003-2008 appears to be a short-term period of uncertainty, since all other data sources–with the exception of Willis’s Argo data (and I’m including here Loehle’s extrapolation of Willis’s data and then DiPuccio’s extrapolation of Loehle’s extrapolation of Willis’s Argo data since they are all based essentially on Willis’ data)–point to ocean warming during this very short period. Thermal expansion is a measure of total ocean heat content and has continued to rise despite the apparent cooling in the upper ocean, according to reconstructions of steric sea level via GRACE satellites and satellite altimetry.
A relatively weak El Nino followed by a strong La Nina accounts for the recent slight cooling in the upper ocean (2007-Present), since warm water from trade winds is blown and piled up to thicken in the west Pacific leaving a depression, allowing for the upwelling of deeper cooler water from the ocean depths to rise to the surface to cool the upper ocean where these measurements are predominantly taken. The long-term trend is still ocean warming.
Some additional interesting tidbits (from comments):
There does not appear to be any study that refutes observations of Recent Bottom Water Warming in the Pacific Ocean (Johnson, 2007):http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/gcj_3f.pdf
Moreover, this abysmal warming appears to be occurring in many different parts of the ocean (please refer to first link for abstracts):
Johnson GC et al. (2006) Recent western South Atlantic bottom water warming Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L14614
Johnson GC et al. (2007) Recent bottom water warming in the Pacific Ocean J. Climate 20, 5365-5375.
Johnson GC (2008) Warming and Freshening in the Abyssal Southeastern Indian Ocean J. Climate 21, 5351-5363.
Ozaki H et al. (2009) Long-term bottom water warming in the north Ross Sea J. Oceanograph. 65, 235-244.
Johnson GC et al. (2009) Deep Caribbean Sea warming Deep Sea Research. 1 –Oceanograph. Res. 56, 827-834.
Johnson GC (2008) Reduced Antarctic meridional overturning circulation reaches the North Atlantic Ocean Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L22601
Another interesting point discussed by a few commentators above and in the article was that as SST rises and evaporates, the increased salinity and the increased density of the upper ocean pulls heat downward toward the ocean depths:http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=311982
Since Willis’ discovery of bad data from the Argo floats, two more errors have been found which is not unexpected given that they are relatively new technology. At least Willis attempts to contextualize this data from the wider context of climate and many other independent data sources. Yet the entire argument for ocean cooling on WUWT appears to be based on one data set–Argo data–while excluding evidence from other data sources that suggest ocean warming. Not only that–but without contextualizing this apparent cooling from the wider context of a 40-year long-term trend for ocean warming, and without mentioning that many 4-5 year periods of short-term temporary cooling have occurred in the past.
That being said, there is still much uncertainty in the reconstruction of ocean heat. For this reason one cannot conclude with confidence that the ocean is cooling, but independent analyses point to a statistically significant warming trend over the past half-dozen years.
*This is just a TEST to see if my comment will be deleted by the moderator as reported elsewhere. Hopefully it will not, because I would like to get some feedback*

Ocean temperature (ocean heat content?) has overnight jumped to the centre stage of the Australian political debate over Carbon emissions legislation – the failure of which may even force an early general election.
The Liberal opposition has been supporting action on carbon emissions but now says it wants to delay an Australian vote until the outcome of Copenhagen in December. So now the Government is relying on support from the greens and independents. One of these independents, Steve Fielding, who may have the deciding vote, has been making trouble. He has been putting one question over and over to the government, the opposition, the greens and a hostile media:
If Carbon emissions is the main driver of global warming then why, over the last 10 years, has carbon emissions been going up but global temperature has not.
He says he has ‘graphs’ to show this, but no interviewer seems to be interested in them, nor anyone interested in answering the question – except to say that world temperature has been at the hotest on record over the last 15 years – which is not in dispute.
Finally, the minister for climate change and her science advisers agreed to meet Senator Fielding and his advisers (including Bob Carter). After the meeting Monday afternoon (15/6, Oz time) Fielding said they refused to answer his question and instead re-phrased it. Anyway, it seems that the Government’s Dr Will Steffen played a new card, and this is the relevance to this discussion.
He is quoted as saying that ocean temperatures were a better indicator of the state of the planet than air temperatures. Fielding finds this a new argument on the evidence – not that of the IPCC – and so he now has something new to go away and consider.
So Fielding’s vote on what everyone agrees is a landmark piece of legislation (if only for its taxation and industrial implication) now apparently dependents on whether he can be convinced by ocean temperature data proffered by Steffen.
But what is Steffen pointing to? Most surface temperature graphs that I have seen seem to show a similar story to air temperature, eg:http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/simple-co2-model-fig02.jpg
But could it be the much more difficult area of heat content, and so could he have produced the graph discussed here?:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/anomalous-spike-in-ocean-heat-content/#more-8132
It would be interesting to find out from Bob Carter what data was presented by both sides.
Story and audio here:http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/16/2599244.htm?section=australia

Wow. What is most striking to me is how unchallenged Gore and his allies have been, and the medias’ total obeisiance to and constant promotion of the hoax for YEARS. (Generate enough fear, and freedom of choice and rule of law will be surrendered for the “security” that will be provided.) World totalitarian government accomplished, which is the end game that we are much closer to than we ever have been.

Fixation on the outdated concept of “peer review” is a characteristic of the AGW alarmist community.
Scientific material should stand on its own and not require a “peer review” process for a false sense of authenticity.
The difference between climate realist (skeptic) sites and the AGW-true-believer sites is that the former is always willing to engage in serious debate because the search for truth is what motivates skeptic sites. The AGW community is more interested in protecting a theory at all costs.
Because the editorial management of many formerly respected publications have long ago sold-out to the AGW alarmist camp so that any expectation of a meaningful “peer review” process is lost.
While respected journals still exist for some professional associations, when it comes to climate science, a relatively small clique of government-funded scientists routinely “circle the wagons” about the AGW theory through publication in friendly magazines/journals of “peer reviewed” analyses that have merely been subjected to review by fellow-travelers in the alarmist camp who dutifully nod their approval (in order to keep the funding flowing).
The absurd nonsense produced by Mann, et al, (“Hockey Stick” and Antarctic warming studies) cannot withstand serious scrutiny from scientists outside the alarmist camp. Further evidence of panic among the AGW-proponents is the dubious analysis using wind as a proxy for temperature (desperately trying to find the missing tropical mid-tropospheric warming signature) when readily available temperature measurements inconveniently disprove their precious AGW theory. Lest the government funding cash cow be slain, AGW alarmists grind out nonsense that is dutifully “peer reviewed” by others living off the same cash cow!
When it comes to climate change science, blogs such as this one produce greater quality scrutiny than the dysfunctional “peer review” process.
The same cannot be said of AGW blog sites. They have become little more than “lovefests” for AGW-believers and add nothing to scientific debate. However, they have managed to hone to a fine art their “snark”, ad hominem invective, and censoring of any meaningful discourse with skeptics.
I am confident that sufficient online review occurs with every significant article/analysis post on this site.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy